res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable doctrine in Washington

5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2003 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Hogland v. Kleingreen
wash · 1956 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wash.2d at 705 , 277 P.2d 372 (citing Covey, 36 Wash.2d at 391 , 218 P.2d 322 ; Morner, 31 Wash.2d 282 , 196 P.2d 744 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wash.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wash.2d at 219-20 , 298 P.2d 1099 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22
Pacheco v. Amesgreen
wash · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003The Washington Supreme Court has recently addressed the specificity required in identifying the "instrumentality." [15] Rejecting the Court of Appeals' decision as one that "would defeat the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases where the defendant offers some evidence explaining the injury," Pacheco, 149 Wash.2d at 440 , 69 P.3d at 328-29, our Supreme Court ruled: In adopting the rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable only where the evidence completely explains the plaintiff's injury, we have noted that a plaintiff is not bound by the testimony of the defendant or his wi

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Engen v. Arnoldyellow
wash · 1963 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Kemalyan v. Henderson green
wash · 1954
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wash.2d at 705 , 277 P.2d 372 (citing Covey, 36 Wash.2d at 391 , 218 P.2d 322 ; Morner, 31 Wash.2d 282 , 196 P.2d 744 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wash.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wash.2d at 219-20 , 298 P.2d 1099 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22003–2003
Covey v. Western Tank Lines, Inc. green
wash · 1950
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wash.2d at 705 , 277 P.2d 372 (citing Covey, 36 Wash.2d at 391 , 218 P.2d 322 ; Morner, 31 Wash.2d 282 , 196 P.2d 744 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wash.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wash.2d at 219-20 , 298 P.2d 1099 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22003–2003
Anderson v. Harrison green
wash · 1940
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22003–2003
Morner v. Union Pacific Railroad green
wash · 1948
2 sentences

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wash.2d at 705 , 277 P.2d 372 (citing Covey, 36 Wash.2d at 391 , 218 P.2d 322 ; Morner, 31 Wash.2d 282 , 196 P.2d 744 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wash.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wash.2d at 219-20 , 298 P.2d 1099 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

2003Kemalyan, 45 Wn.2d at 705 (citing Covey, 36 Wn.2d at 391 ; Morner, 31 Wn.2d 282 ; Anderson v. Harrison, 4 Wn.2d 265 , 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wn.2d at 219-20 ; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wn.2d 641, 647 , 379 P.2d 990 (1963).

22003–2003
Pacheco v. Ames green
wash · 2003
2 sentences

2003The Washington Supreme Court has recently addressed the specificity required in identifying the "instrumentality." [15] Rejecting the Court of Appeals' decision as one that "would defeat the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases where the defendant offers some evidence explaining the injury," Pacheco, 149 Wash.2d at 440 , 69 P.3d at 328-29, our Supreme Court ruled: In adopting the rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable only where the evidence completely explains the plaintiff's injury, we have noted that a plaintiff is not bound by the testimony of the defendant or his wi

2003The Washington Supreme Court has recently addressed the specificity required in identifying the “instrumentality.” 15 Rejecting the Court of Appeals decision as one that “would defeat the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases where the defendant offers some evidence explaining the injury,” Pacheco, 149 Wn.2d at 440 , our Supreme Court ruled: In adopting the rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable only where the evidence completely explains the plaintiff’s injury, we have noted that a plaintiff is not bound by the testimony of the defendant or his witnesses.

22003–2003
Lynch v. Ninemire Packing Co. green
wash · 1911
2 sentences

1941“The maxim of res ipsa loquitur is applied in negligence cases on the theory that the accident, in the light of surrounding circumstances, is of such a character as to raise a presumption of negligence from the occurrence itself; and on the further theory, that the injured party is not in a position to explain its cause; while the party charged, having more favorable opportunities, is in a position to thus explain and show himself free from negligence, if such be the case.” Lynch v. Ninemire Packing Co., 63 Wash. 423 , 115 Pac. 838 .

1941“The maxim of res ipsa loquitur is applied in negligence cases on the theory that the accident, in the light of surrounding circumstances, is of such a character as to raise a presumption of negligence from the occurrence itself; and on the further theory, that the injured party is not in a position to explain its cause; while the party charged, having more favorable opportunities, is in a position to thus explain and show himself free from negligence, if such be the case.” Lynch v. Ninemire Packing Co., 63 Wash. 423 , 115 Pac. 838 .

11941–1941

Where else courts name it

NY 27 (1992–2018) LA 23 (1954–2003) NC 6 (1976–2009) CA 5 (1940–2016) WA 5 (1941–2003) MS 4 (1996–2010) IL 4 (1908–1987) KS 3 (1948–2011) MO 3 (1964–2000) NE 3 (1976–2003) OH 3 (2001–2010) KY 2 (1926–2022) MI 2 (1987–2019) ID 2 (1979–1984)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check