Our Seattle personal injury attorney did not participate in the lawsuit described.
The Washington Supreme Court in a recent personal injury case ruled on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.[1] Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself”.“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur spares the plaintiff the normal requirement of proving specific acts of negligence in cases where a plaintiff asserts that he or she suffered injury, the cause of which cannot be fully explained, and the injury is of a type that would not ordinarily result if the defendant were not negligent. In such cases the jury is permitted to infer negligence. The doctrine permits the inference of negligence on the basis that the evidence of the cause of the injury is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.”
The doctrines is “sparingly applied, in peculiar and exceptional cases, and only where the facts and the demands of justice make its application essential’”.
In the case before the Court a tenant had been injured when a dock on which she was walking gave way under her. The landowner had the dock destroyed shortly after the incident, so there is no evidence as to the dock’s condition at the time of the accident.
The injured plaintiff invoked res ipsa loquitur to fill in the evidentiary gaps caused by the dock’s destruction. The trial court held the doctrine did not apply because causes other than negligent maintenance of the dock could have been at play in the fall. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also concluded that res ipsa loquitur did not apply, though on different grounds. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, while res ipsa loquitur could be invoked as evidence of negligence, it did not relieve the injured plaintiff of the burden of proving that the dock’s defect was discoverable, which is a required element in liability for injury to an invitee.
The Washington Supreme Court noted the elements of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) the accident or occurrence that caused the plaintiff’s injury would not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence,
(2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the plaintiff’s injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant, and
(3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident or occurrence.
The first element is satisfied if one of three conditions is present:(1) When the act causing the injury is so palpably negligent that it may be inferred as a matter of law, i.e., leaving foreign objects, sponges, scissors, etc., in the body, or amputation of a wrong member;
(2) when the general experience and observation of mankind teaches that the result would not be expected without negligence; or
(3) when proof by experts in an esoteric field creates an inference that negligence caused the injuries.
The Court noted an earlier holding in which wooden scaffolding collapsed while a painter was working upon it.[2] The Court held that res ipsa loquitur supplied the necessary evidence of negligence, noting that the result was to shift the burden to the defendant to prove, through evidence sufficient to rebut the inference arising from application of res ipsa loquitur, that the faulty condition of the scaffolding was undiscoverable.
The Court accepted the argument that experience tells us that wooden docks ordinarily do not give way if properly maintained and held that the injured plaintiff may rely on res ipsa loquitur in presenting her case to a jury, and noting that whether the inference of negligence arising from res ipsa loquitur will be convincing to a jury is a question to be answered by that jury.
[1] Curtis v. Lein, NO. 83307-9 (Filed September 16, 2010).
[2] Penson v. Inland Empire Paper Co., 73 Wash. 338, 132 P. 39 (1913).