(a)As used in this section, “defendant” includes any party against whom the res ipsa loquitur presumption operates.
(b)The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(c)If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would support a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant has introduced evidence which would support a finding that he was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the occurrence, the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury to the effect that:
(1)If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and
(2)The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Brown v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 843 P.2d 624 (Cal. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The procedural and evidentiary consequences that follow from the conclusion that an accident "speaks for itself" vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.”
People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 44 P.3d 949 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “(e)(3) [under "Son of Sam" law, Attorney General may obtain order compelling deposit of covered proceeds or profits with bank trustee by showing it is "more probable than not" there are beneficiaries entitled to such funds]; Evid.Code, § 646, subd. (c)(2) [where res ipsa…”
Baumgardner v. Yusuf, 144 Cal. App. 4th 1381 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “2d 624 ; Evid.Code, § 646, subd. (b).) The presumption that an accident was caused by the defendant's lack of care arises only when the evidence satisfies three conditions: (1) The accident must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the…”
Fagerquist v. W. Sun Aviation, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 3d 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “(3) Here, Western Sun was not precluded from defending against Kristina's proof it was negligent.”
Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“59, which states that “[s]uch a presumption is merely a preliminary assumption in the absence of contrary evidence, i.”
Sanchez v. Bay Gen. Hosp., 116 Cal. App. 3d 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).
“Cheatham in this fashion: “It then became defendant’s obligation to introduce sufficient evidence to sustain a finding either that the accident resulted from some cause other than Cheatham’s negligence, or, else, that Cheatham exercised due care in all possible respects wherein…”
Frantz v. San Luis Med. Clinic, 81 Cal. App. 3d 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “2 *42 Evidence Code section 646, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he judicial doctrine of res ipso loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.”
Elcome v. Chin, 110 Cal. App. 4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“(Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).) “A presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence ‘require[s] the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact’ unless the defendant introduces evidence to the contrary.”
Newing v. Cheatham, 540 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1975).
““(b) The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.”
Vebr v. Culp, 241 Cal. App. 4th 1044 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“*1058 Vebr also argues that the trial court improperly denied him the opportunity to prove the Culps were negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”
Blackwell v. Hurst, 46 Cal. App. 4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
“” (Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).) For this presumption to arise, three conditions must be satisfied: 1.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.