Court Opinion

ID: 9687462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:28:36.811145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:27.541457
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.
I concur in result. It seems both unnecessary and unwise to continue to cling to the exclusive control doctrine when we have decided eases where exclusive control was not in fact proved and yet approved the use of the doctrine of res ipsa, Weidert v. Monahan Post Legionnaire Club, 243 Iowa 643, 51 N.W.2d 400; Sutcliffe v. Fort Dodge Gas & Elec. Co., 218 Iowa 1386, 257 N.W. 406; Thompson v. Burke Engineering Sales Co., 252 Iowa 146, 106 N.W.2d 351, 84 A. L. R.2d 689, and Larrabee v. Des Moines Tent & Awning Co., 189 Iowa 319, 178 N.W. 373. Many authorities on the subject indicate quite clearly that exclusive control is not, or should not be, a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Restatement, Second, Torts, section 328D(g), page 161. “Exclusive control is merely one fact which establishes the responsibility of the defendant; and if it can be established otherwise, exclusive control is not essential to a res ipsa loquitur case. The essential question becomes one of whether the probable cause is one which the defendant was under a duty to the plaintiff to anticipate or guard against.”
Harper and James, The Law of Torts, section 19.7, page 1085, states: “Viewed in this light the requirement of proof of exclusive control is immediately seen to impose too strict a burden upon plaintiffs. Exclusive control may have the requisite logical tendency, but there are also many other ways (not involving exclusive control) in which the probable negligence can be attributed to defendant. And in fact the courts do not generally apply this requirement as it is literally stated, although mechanical insistence upon it has brought about an occasional restrictive result. The requirement as it is generally applied is more accurately stated as one that the evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably ‘such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it.’ ”
Other authorities might be cited for the proposition that *1074while exclusive control is an element to be considered, it is not a prerequisite to the use of the doctrine.
Kawlings, J., joins in this special concurrence.