Court Opinion

ID: 9543768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:49:03.720477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:10.346405
License: Public Domain

*315WOLFE, sChief Justice
(concurring).
I concur. While it is true that, as pointed out by the appellant, we have stated in several prior cases that the inference of negligence which the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur permits the fact finder to make might, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, compel a finding of negligence, I think that it would be a rare case where the inference would be that strong. The burden of persuasion being upon the plaintiff and negligence not being proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence, it is difficult for me to visualize a situation in which the fact finder would be compelled to find for the plaintiff even though the defendant did not offer an explanation. The circumstantial evidence of negligence might be highly persuasive and impelling, but I question that in any case the fact finder would be compelled to find negligence.
I agree with the majority opinion that the instruction given by the court which told the jury that the defendants were presumed to have been negligent was a more favorable instruction than they were entitled to under the law of this State.