Res Ipsa Loquitur – Overview
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin term meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” In practice, although res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine, it also essentially acts as a common law cause of action, rooted in negligence, with its own elemental test. So why bring a res ipsa negligence claim? Because, despite the doctrine’s limited applicability, it can nevertheless constitute a tool for an injured Plaintiff who lacks any direct evidence indicating that the Defendant was in fact negligent. The doctrine is most commonly seen utilized when parties and courts are faced with bizarre, unusual, or unexplained circumstances.
For example, the keystone case, Byrne v. Boadle, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (1863), involved a barrel of flour falling from a shop window and striking a street pedestrian, with no witnesses or evidence to explain the cause of such an incident. Perhaps a more modern example of application of the doctrine is a recent lawsuit in California, arising out of a deadly fireworks warehouse explosion, which presumably would not have occurred had the appropriate procedures been in place.[1]
When suing in tort for negligence, an injured Plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed, the Defendant’s breach of that duty, damages suffered by the Plaintiff resulting from the Defendant’s breach, and, importantly – a causal link between the Defendant’s breach and the damages suffered. A lack of direct evidence supporting that causal link can defeat a claim for negligence. However, the assertion of res ipsa loquitur can aid Plaintiffs in satisfying their burden of proof with what is ultimately only circumstantial evidence.
Res Ipsa Loquitur – Elements
If you find yourself being sued on a theory of res ipsa negligence, it is critical to understand that establishing the existence of the following elements is the injured Plaintiff’s burden:
(1) the instrumentality causing his or her injury was under the exclusive control of the Defendant; and
(2) the accident is one that would not, in the ordinary course of events, have occurred without negligence on the part of the one in control of the instrumentality.
See MacClatchey v. HCA Services of Florida, Inc., 139 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Some Florida courts have also informally included a third element, which is the requirement that “there is no direct proof of negligence presented by the injured party.” Marrero v. Goldsmith, 486 So 2d. 30 (Fla. 1986). Once the Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence establishing these elements, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates a permissible inference – rather than a presumption – of negligence. Thus, satisfying the elemental test of res ipsa loquitur is no “ace in the hole” for an injured Plaintiff, because the jury may opt to disregard the inference entirely, and instead enter a verdict for the Defendant. Magic v. Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Komorowski, 618 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Defending Against Res Ipsa Loquitur
Further, in defending itself, a Defendant may contest the applicability of the doctrine by targeting each element, as well as offering its own evidence to rebut the inference of negligence established by the Plaintiff through res ipsa loquitur.
For example, a Defendant can attempt to negate the element of “exclusive control” by offering evidence of other potential causes and/or contributors to the Plaintiff’s injuries, including the Plaintiff itself. Such a defense typically comes in the form of intervening, superseding, or third-party causes. The court in City of New Smyrna Beach Utilities Com’n v. McWhorter, 418 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1982) held that the property owner Plaintiff was not entitled to an instruction of res ipsa for damage suffered due to an obstructed sewer line because, although the city had exclusive control over construction and operation of the sewer system, it could not control the object that entered the system causing the obstruction. A defendant may also rebut the inference of negligence supplied by the doctrine by offering rebuttal evidence that it acted with due care, and thus did not breach any duty it owed to the Plaintiff.
In sum, although res ipsa loquitur may appear to be an “ace in the hole” for an injured Plaintiff at first blush, the reality is that it may not be so simple. Not only must the Plaintiff first satisfy its burden to establish the res ipsa elements, but it then must also survive the Defendant’s evidence offered in rebuttal.
[1] Farm sues over deadly Esparto fireworks explosion, claiming crop loss and negligence – CBS Sacramento