Opinion ID: 1444031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court correctly refused to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

Text: The Le'Galls assert that the trial court should have given their requested jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. We disagree. Res ipsa loquitur applies when the agency or instrumentality causing the injury is under the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and the circumstances of the case are such that common knowledge and experience would justify the inference that the accident would not have happened in the absence of negligence. Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615, 618, 717 P.2d 1033, 1036 (1986). The trial court correctly declined to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction because it does not apply in this case. First, the defendants, the county and the building owners, were not in exclusive control of the agency or instrumentality causing the fire. Assuming that the baseboard heater caused the fire, Reneau had control over it after the county or the building owners did, thus destroying exclusivity. Second, a fire is something that can happen even if no one is negligent. See, e.g., Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. at 619, 717 P.2d at 1037 (Our common knowledge and experience ... would not justify the inference that the [fire] would not have happened in the absence of negligence in that there are many possible causes for a building fire in the absence of negligence.). Therefore, neither requirement for the application of res ipsa loquitur was met.