Court Opinion

ID: 9845027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:13:58.818293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.529228
License: Public Domain

WOOD, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Under this doctrine the burden of proof did not shift to defendants but required them to produce sufficient evidence to overcome the prima facie showing of negligence. To do this it was necessary for them to establish to the satisfaction of the jury that the line was properly constructed with adequate safety appliances and that it was operated and maintained with proper care. (Manuel v. Pa*162cific Gas & Elec. Co., 134 Cal. App. 512 [25 Pac. (2d) 509] ; Phillips v. Southern Cal. E. Co., Ltd., 23 Cal. App. (2d) 222 [72 Pac. (2d) 769].) It was the function of the jury to determine whether defendants presented sufficient evidence to offset the prima facie case created by the application of the res ipsa loquitur rule. (Helms v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 21 Cal. App. (2d) 711 [70 Pac. (2d) 247].)
The court did not err in sustaining objections to the hypothetical questions by which defendants sought to prove that the employee of defendant corporation acted in accordance with approved practice in reclosing the switch. The questions did not contain all of the elements shown to be present at the time of the accident. Moreover, the witnesses in describing the practices followed by the companies by which they were employed in effect answered the questions to which objections were sustained.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on April 15,1940, and an application by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 25, 1940.