Opinion ID: 160830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Res Ipsa Loquitur Instruction

Text: 25 Wal-Mart also argues that it is entitled to a new trial because, under Wyoming law, the jury should not have been instructed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This court reviews de novo the legal question of whether the jury was properly instructed on the governing law. See Thompson v. United States, 223 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 2000). If this court concludes that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on an improper theory and we are unable to determine with absolute certainty whether the jury relied on the erroneous instruction, a general verdict must be reversed. Farrell v. Klein Tools, Inc., 866 F.2d 1294, 1301 (10th Cir. 1989). 26 The res ipsa loquitur instruction given by the district court allowed the jury to infer Wal-Mart's negligence. 1 Wal-Mart, however, contends that Wyoming law precludes the giving of a res ipsa loquitur instruction when a party attempts to prove specific acts of negligence. See Dellapenta v. Dellapenta, 838 P.2d 1153, 1164-65 (Wyo. 1992). Wal-Mart argues that under Wyoming law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the facts of this case because Allen proceeded on a negligence theory. We agree. 2 27 Under Wyoming law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is limited to those situations where the thing which causes damage or injury, without the fault of the plaintiff, is shown to be under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not occur if one having such control uses proper care. Wood v. Geis Trucking Co., 639 P.2d 903, 906 (Wyo. 1982). In Dellapenta, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the doctrine is inapplicable when a plaintiff presents specific evidence of presumably negligent acts and the defendant presents an equally-plausible, alternative explanation for the accident that is supported by some evidence. 838 P.2d at 1165. The court recently applied the Dellapenta holding in Reese v. Board of Directors of Memorial Hospital, 955 P.2d 425, 427 (Wyo. 1998), stating: the doctrine cannot be applied when an inference that the injury was due to a cause other than the defendant's negligence could be drawn as reasonably as one that it was due to his negligence. Under such circumstances, the thing does not speak for itself and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is inapplicable. See id. 28 The record, including the trial transcript and Allen's closing argument, clearly indicates that Allen attempted to prove specific acts of Wal-Mart's negligence. Allen testified that she observed a Wal-Mart employee standing on a bottom shelf and reaching for merchandise. A reasonable inference could be drawn from this evidence that the accident occurred as a result of Wal-Mart's negligence. Additionally, during closing arguments Allen's counsel stated, I'm going to tell you that I think the most important document that you may see in the jury room will be . . . the report of the customer incident that was taken within 24 hours, . . . and I think that explains the incident, or nearly explains the incident. The document to which Allen's counsel referred during closing arguments contained, inter alia, the following account of the accident given by Allen: a female associate stood on shelf to get item from riser and [ ] 20-30 'pink boxes' fell and hit [Allen] on the head and shoulders. 29 At trial, the Wal-Mart employee testified that she did not stand on the shelf. Instead, the employee testified that she observed Allen attempting to retrieve merchandise from the top shelf. This testimony is evidence from which a equally-reasonable inference could be drawn that the accident was due to a cause other than Wal-Mart's negligence. Wyoming law clearly provides that a res ipsa loquitur instruction is inappropriate under these circumstances. See Reese, 955 P.2d at 427; Dellapenta, 838 P.2d at 1164-65. The district court, therefore, erroneously instructed the jury on an improper theory. Based on the record before us, this court is unable to determine with absolute certainty whether the jury relied on the erroneous instruction when it returned its general verdict. Consequently, this court must reverse and remand for a new trial. See Farrell, 866 F.2d at 1301.