Hand Test Practice saved Permits jury to infer that the Ps injury was caused by

Hand test practice saved permits jury to infer that

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 52 pages.

actions were reasonable b/c of L.Hand Test. Practice saved $ = Permits jury to infer that the P’s injury was caused by Ds carelessness even when the P presents no evidence of particular acts or omissions on the part of the D that might constitute carelessness / Can jury draw inference of res ipsa loquitor? Res Ipsa Loquitur : P can go to jury in absence of direct evidence if these 3 elements to prove “more likely then not” 1. Accident that harmed victim is type that wouldn’t occur w/out carelessness/ does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence 2. Caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant 3. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of P P passive victim POLICY ARG: just not fair to P to come up with evidence of D’s negligence that doesn’t exist or cant get . Conditions will keep fairness both ways OVERALL IDEA: RIL Permits SOME P’S TO PREVAIL w/o EVIDENCE OF HOW D WAS CARELESS EXAMPLES: KAMBAT v. ST. FRANCIS HOSP. (pg. 200) – need not eliminate other causes for res ipsa laparotomy pad found in abdomen of Ps’ decedent following a hysterectomy performed by D Rule : 3 conditions for res ipsa: (1) event must be of a kind that ordinarily doesn’t occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by agency or instrumentality in exclusive control of D (today this is less strict – now its MOST LIKELY that it is in Ds control); (3) must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on part of P Res Ipsa Loquitur No Res Ipsa Loquitur ACCIDENT IN ITSELF OCCURING IS PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE: ( BYRNE v. BOADLE: guy got hit by falling flour) D’s duty was to handle barrels in a reasonable fashion so as to prevent foreseeable injury to people on the street. – barrel cant just roll out w/out negligence Rule : the flour falling from a flour shop is prima facie evidence of negligence and the P who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could not fall without negligence Doesn’t prove D negligent/ just relieves P of burden of production of evidence/ Burden is just on D to prove no neg. Locke v. Pachtman (Mich. 1994) Res Ipsa not applicable when a broken hypodermic need was left in a patient’s body. Proving Breach: RES IPSA LOQUITOR (the thing speaks for itself) 11
Image of page 11
Res Ipsa Loquitur No Res Ipsa Loquitur COA UNKNOWN – RIL to ALLOW JURY TO INFER NEG BECAUSE EVENT HAPPENED Mishap during surgery on unconscious P, unrelated to underlying med. Condition (Kambat v. St. Franics Hops.) RULE: to rely on res ipsa a P need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury; the inference of negligence could reasonably have been drawn upon a commonsense appraisal of the probative value of the circumstantial evidence The jury was permitted to infer negligence from a laparoscopy pad left in P’s abdomen after surgery. [SN: D added alt theory that P swallowed pad herself] MULTIPLE CAR COLLISSION: Martinez v. CO2 Servs. (10 th Cir.
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 52 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture