res ipsa loqui-tur doctrine in Utah

1992In earlier aviation cases, the courts did not apply the doctrine to unexplained crashes because the then current state of the art did not justify an inference of negligence. 699 P.2d at 722 (citing W.

1991Ballow v. Monroe, 699 P.2d 719, 722 (Utah 1985) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2017Under res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff can “go forward on circumstantial evidence alone” by establishing “a rebuttable inference of negligence and causation.” Nielsen v. Pioneer Valley Hospital, 830 P.2d 270, 273 (Utah 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017However, to prove that such a vehicle caused an accident, the claimant must “show the existence of the uninsured motor vehicle by clear and convincing evidence consisting of more than the covered person’s testimony.” Id. § 31A-22-305(6). ¶10 The doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur “is essentially an evidentiary rule that allows an inference of negligence to be drawn when human experience provides a reasonable basis for concluding that an injury probably would not have happened if due care had been exercised.” King v. Searle Pharm., Inc., 832 P.2d 858, 861 (Utah 1992).