Opinion ID: 883733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiff's Proposed Instruction #23

Text: Contreras offered Proposed Instruction #23 which stated: A legal doctrine called res ipsa loquitur is involved in this case. The meaning of the term is, it speaks for itself. Under this doctrine, even though negligence has not been proven by other evidence, you may infer negligence from the circumstances surrounding an event if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) other causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and other persons, have been sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. Contreras argues that this is a classic res ipsa loquitur case. That is not accurate. Res ipsa loquitur does not permit the presumption of negligence; a plaintiff must make a prima facie case that defendant breached a duty of care before the question goes to the jury. Clark v. Norris (1987), 226 Mont. 43, 48, 734 P.2d 182, 185. The elements of duty and breach of duty were very much in question under the facts of this case. Further, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur encompasses an element of exclusive control of the instrumentality involved. Dalton v. Kalispell Hospital (1993), 256 Mont. 243, 846 P.2d 960. The instrumentality involved, the valve, would have to have been under the exclusive control of Vannoy. Control is a significant issue in the case. Further, the key to the boiler room hung on a hook in an adjoining room where anyone could have taken it. Contreras cannot use this theory to bypass presentation of evidence on the elements of negligence. We conclude that the court properly instructed the jury on all theories of the case and on the appropriate law. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury. Affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES HUNT, NELSON and LEAPHART concur.