Court Opinion

ID: 9637577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:10:51.909158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:57.892016
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Associate Judge, Retired
(dissenting) :
I believe the majority is in error in saying that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot apply here because the cause of the accident is not known. The cause is known. The cause was the striking of the lead car by the rear car. Saying that the cause of the accident must be known means simply that the instrumentality or thing causing the injury must be known. Thus in the frequently cited case of Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Hickey, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 61, 137 F.2d 677, 679 (1943), where the court said, “The cause of the accident is known . . . ”, it said in that case the “cause” of the accident was “a falling ventilator.”
Here the cause of the injury was the striking car which was in control of the driver [appellee], and if the driver of a car uses reasonable care it will not ordinarily strike another car from the rear. See Bauman v. Sragow, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 243 (1973). The trial court was in error in saying that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not apply, and the majority of this court is in error in agreeing with the trial court.
I would reverse with instructions to grant a new trial as to Byers only.