res ipsa loquitur is applicable doctrine in Louisiana

1972When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to a case, the accident which has caused plaintiff’s damage makes out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendant, and the burden is then on the defendant to show absence of negligence on his part.” Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain, 226 La. 788 , 77 So.2d 395 (1955).

1972When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to a case, the accident which has caused plaintiff’s damage makes out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendant, and the burden is then on the defendant to show absence of negligence on his part.” Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain, 226 La. 788 , 77 So.2d 395 (1955).

1963R., Light & Power Company, 127 La. 309 , 53 So. 575 , Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Company, 210 La. 810 , 28 So.2d 441 and Plunkett v. United Electric Service, 214 La. 145 , 36 So.2d 704 , 3 A.L.R.2d 1437 .” All of the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur are present here.

1963R., Light & Power Company, 127 La. 309 , 53 So. 575 , Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Company, 210 La. 810 , 28 So.2d 441 and Plunkett v. United Electric Service, 214 La. 145 , 36 So.2d 704 , 3 A.L.R.2d 1437 .” All of the requirements for the application of res ipsa loquitur are present here.

1955The Watkins case held that, “Where damages are caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of a defendant and they would not ordinarily have occurred if the party having control of the instrumentality had used proper care, the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur’ applies.” Plunkett v. United Electric Service, 214 La. 145 , 36 So.2d 704 , 3 A.L.R.2d 1437 , held that, “Where doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, plaintiff need neither allege nor prove particular acts of omission or commission from which accident resulted, the accident itself creating an inference of negligence, an

1955The Watkins case held that, “Where damages are caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of a defendant and they would not ordinarily have occurred if the party having control of the instrumentality had used proper care, the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur’ applies.” Plunkett v. United Electric Service, 214 La. 145 , 36 So.2d 704 , 3 A.L.R.2d 1437 , held that, “Where doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, plaintiff need neither allege nor prove particular acts of omission or commission from which accident resulted, the accident itself creating an inference of negligence, an

1971For instance, it was declared by this court in Jeter v. Lachle, supra: "This situation is analogous to a situation where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.

1962App., 106 So.2d 808 : "This situation is analogous to a situation where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.

1969Gerald v. Standard Oil Company of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 .

1969Gerald v. Standard Oil Company of Louisiana, 204 La. 690 , 16 So.2d 233 .

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1954Appropriate here is the statement of the court in Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 185 La. 1067 , 171 So. 447 , 449: "Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its *714 management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. 45 C.J. § 768, p. 1193.

1954Appropriate here is the statement of the court in Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 185 La. 1067 , 171 So. 447 , 449: "Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its *714 management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. 45 C.J. § 768, p. 1193.

2008Id.

2008Discussion The supreme court observed in Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., 05-257, pp. 7-8 (La.9/6/06), 938 So.2d 35, 40 , that “[a] products liability claim is, by its own nature, extremely ‘fact-intensive,’ and as such, the heart of [a plaintiffs] claim lies with the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at trial.” Pursuant to La.R.S. 9:2800.54(A), a plaintiff who asserts a products liability claim must prove that the damage for which he seeks to recover was “proximately |4caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous.” The supreme

2006A. RES IPSA LOQUITUR It is well settled that res ipsa loquitur, Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," is an evidentiary doctrine utilized when there has been a highly unusual act/occurrence; there is no direct evidence to suggest that a defendant's negligence brought about said act/occurrence; and yet, the circumstances surrounding the anomalous event (coupled with the defendant's connection to the unusual act/occurrence) allow the finder of fact to conclude *44 that the defendant was negligent. [19] In Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 564 So.2d 654 (La. 1989), thi

1981Holliday v. Peden, 359 So.2d 640 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1978).

1981Plaintiffs rely on the case of McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital, 276 So.2d 259 (La.1973), where it was said: "Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence.

1977Appellants contend the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, citing Gregory v. Guarisco, 320 So.2d 354 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1975).

1976Article 2317, citing in support thereof Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441 (La.1975).

1974For the relationship between Pitre Ford Co. and Esward Bordelon was clearly that of compensated depositary and depositor or bailee and bailor (terms which are used interchangeably in our jurisprudence.) Zesiger v. Dean, 247 So.2d 222 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971); Taylor v. Haik, 208 So.2d 433 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1968); Baker v. Employer's Fire Ins.

1974Plaintiffs cite further Prescott v. Central Contracting Co., 162 La. 885 , 111 So. 269 , in support of their argument that an inference of negligence is created in the instant case and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.

1974Plaintiffs cite further Prescott v. Central Contracting Co., 162 La. 885 , 111 So. 269 , in support of their argument that an inference of negligence is created in the instant case and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.

1974For instance, in West Coast Hospital Ass’n v. Webb, 52 So.2d 803 (Sup.Ct.Fla.1951), plaintiff during a diabetic coma complicated by pneumonia, suffered serious burns while she was unconscious in the defendant hospital.

1974For the relationship between Pitre Ford Co. and Esward Bordelon was clearly that of compensated depositary and depositor or bailee and bailor (terms which are used interchangeably in our jurisprudence.) Zesiger v. Dean, 247 So.2d 222 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971); Taylor v. Haik, 208 So.2d 433 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1968); Baker v. Employer's Fire Ins.

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1969The circumstances under which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable are discussed in Great American Indemnity Co. v. Ford, La.App., 122 So.2d 111 , and Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, La.App., 191 So.2d 338 (affirmed by the Supreme Court, 250 La. 1016 , 201 So.2d 275 ).

1968In Vallette v. Maison Blanche Co., La.App., 29 So.2d 528 we considered a situation almost unbelievably similar to that which is here presented by the contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and that there is liability since the defendants have not shown just what caused the accident and that they therefore have failed to show that there was no fault in the operation of the escalator or its design.

1964A succinct statement of the applicable law regarding res ipsa loquitur is found in the concurring opinion of Justice Sanders in the recent case of Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 245 La. 276 , 158 So.2d 162 , at page 171, as follows: "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence, the applicability of *79 which is to be determined at the conclusion of the trial.

1964A succinct statement of the applicable law regarding res ipsa loquitur is found in the concurring opinion of Justice Sanders in the recent case of Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 245 La. 276 , 158 So.2d 162 , at page 171, as follows: "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence, the applicability of *79 which is to be determined at the conclusion of the trial.

1962The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in bailor-bailee relationships; Lehigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors, 75 So.2d 710 (La.App.1954) is pertinent under the facts here, where the furs were soaked with a chemical substance, while both the furs and the chemical were in the control of the Airline; and the Airline introduced no evidence to rebut the presumption of lack of due care on its part.

1962In instances such as this, where the relationship of bailor and bailee has been established and damage or injury has been shown to the property constituting the deposit, the burden is upon the bailee or depositary to exonerate himself from the presumption of negligence or fault. * * *" In Hazel v. Williams, supra, the court quoted from Corpus Juris Secundum thusly: "* * * and hence, where chattels are delivered to a bailee in good condition and are returned in a damaged state, or are lost or not returned at all, the law presumes the bailee's negligence or other fault to be the cause, and casts