McDougald v. Perry

Nature of the Case

This was a lawsuit over an accident on the highway and an appeal from the reversal of a trial court’s instruction on res ipsa loquitur.

Facts

McDougald (P) sued Perry (D) and his employer C&S Chemical, Inc. over an accident that occurred when the 130 pound spare tire on Perry’s truck came out of its cradle and fell to the ground, eventually striking McDougald’s car. McDougald had been driving behind Perry and the tire came out of its cradle when the truck crossed railroad tracks. Perry then drove over the loose tire causing it to strike McDougald’s windshield.

During trial, Perry testified that the tire was secured by a 4-6 foot chain with one inch links which were wrapped around the tire and that Perry believed it was the original chain that came with the trailer in 1969. He also testified that the chain was secured to the body of the trailer by a latch device which was in proper working order. Perry testified that he did a pre-trip inspection of the trailer on the day of the accident and inspected the chain, but not each link.

After the accident Perry noticed that the chain was dragging under the trailer. He testified that the links had stretched and the chain slipped from the nut which secured it to the trailer. The judge instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and McDougald got the verdict. Perry appealed. The district court reversed and with instructions that the trial court direct a verdict in the defendant’s favor. McDougald appealed.

Issues

  1. What must the plaintiff prove in order to establish the liability of the defendant under res ipsa loquitur?
  2. Under res ipsa loquitur, must the plaintiff prove that the accident would not, in the ordinary course of events have occurred without negligence by the defendant?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. To establish liability under res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence, beyond that of the accident itself, from which the jury may infer that the accident would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach of due care.
  2. No. Under res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff need not prove that the accident would not, in the ordinary course of events have occurred without negligence by the defendant.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur recognizes that in rare instances, an injury may permit an inference of negligence if coupled with sufficient showing of its immediate, precipitating cause. It is a rule of evidence that permits but does not require an inference of negligence to be found in certain rare circumstances.

There must be a finding that such events do not ordinarily occur unless someone has been negligent. In the usual case this is supplied by mere common sense based on past experience. But, it may also be supplied by the evidence of the parties, or by expert testimony.

A tire escaping from the cradle underneath a truck with the end result of it becoming airborne and crashing into McDougald’s car is the type of accident, based on common experience and as a matter of general knowledge, that would not occur but for the failure to exercise reasonable care by the person who had control of the spare. However we do not agree with the Second District that McDougald failed to establish this element because other possible explanations exist to explain the failure of the chain. Speculation does not defeat the doctrine as the plaintiff is not required to eliminate with certainty all other possible causes or inferences. McDougald need only get to the point in his proof from which reasonable persons can say that on the whole it is more likely that there was negligence associated with the case of the event than that there was not.

Disposition

Reversed and verdict reinstated.


Related posts: