Opinion ID: 1201444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the res ipsa loquitur pattern of proof

Text: Res ipsa loquitur [4] is a pattern of proof which may be applied to an injury that does not occur in the usual course of everyday conduct unless a person who controls the instrumentality likely to produce injury fails to exercise due care to prevent its occurrence. [5] With the aid of res ipsa loquitur negligence may be inferred from the harm without the aid of circumstances pointing to the responsible human cause. [6] The fundamental element of this evidentiary process is the control of the instrumentality which caused the damage. [7] Whether a case is fit for the application of res ipsa loquitur presents a question of law; it is judicial function to determine if a certain set of circumstances permits a given inference. [8] Among the earliest negligence plaintiffs to benefit from the evidentiary process introduced by res ipsa loquitur were passengers in public transportation conveyances [9] injured, while the appliance in which they were riding remained under the defendant's management, in a course of unexplained events that, according to human experience, do not ordinarily happen if due care is exercised. [10] An automatic elevator's sudden descent may raise a rebuttable inference of negligence under the res ipsa loquitur evidentiary process if the occurrence was due to some mechanism's failure which would not ordinarily happen when due care is exercised in the appliance's construction, installation and maintenance by the person charged with those responsibilities. [11] Elevator mechanisms are hidden from view, and since they consist of mechanical, electrical, and sophisticated electronic systems, they are at any rate not easily capable of manifesting a defect. Once the button is pressed, a rider has no control whatsoever over the events which follow. Even when, after the fact, experts are able to examine the physical evidence, proof is not easy to come by. A defendant's knowledge of the incident's cause often would exceed, if not indeed supersede, that of the plaintiff. [12] In sum, while invocability of res ipsa loquitur must be assessed on the facts of each case, [13] its application to transportation appliances is not without a firm foundation in early and recent national res ipsa jurisprudence.