Opinion ID: 749336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Determination

Text: 12 This case came to trial on December 16, 1996. Ms. Robinson alleged that her injury while working on one of Burlington's trains was caused by the railroad's negligence: by an equipment malfunction, by the engineer's excessively abrupt application of the brake, by the clumsy and slippery boots provided by the railroad, or by a combination of those factors. Among the claims in her complaint and at trial was one based on the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The complaint stated: 13 [A]t the time and place alleged the cut of cars, the persons operating movement of the cut of cars, the throttle and braking system, and all of the appurtenances of the locomotive and cars were under the maintenance, operation and control of and in the exclusive possession of the defendant, and severe slack action occurred causing plaintiff to be thrown from the side ladder of car and to be injured, and accidents of the nature described herein do not occur in the ordinary course of operations if defendant had used ordinary care. 14 R.1 p 8(a). Ms. Robinson proposed a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction; however, the court refused to give it. 15 On December 19, 1996, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the railroad. The trial court denied Ms. Robinson's motion for a new trial. This appeal was filed in timely fashion. II