res ipso loquitur doctrine in Massachusetts

1946Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413 , Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408 , Tucker v. Haverhill Electric Co., 262 Mass. 81 , Pitman v. Lynn Gas & Electric Co., 241 Mass, 322, Olsen v. New England Fuel & Trans.

1918Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc. supra. As there was no evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent, the presiding judge rightly directed a verdict for the defendant.

1940Blanchard v. Kronick, 269 Mass. 464, 465 .

1937Blanchard v. Kronick, 269 Mass. 464, 465 .

1914Cassady v. Old Colony Street Railway, 184 Mass. 156 .

1909As was said in Cassady v. Old Colony Street Railway, 184 Mass. 156, 163 , “ An unsuccessful attempt to prove by direct evidence the precise cause does not estop the plaintiff from relying upon the presumptions applicable to it.” Sullivan v. Rowe, 194 Mass. 500 .

1973In Richenbacker v. California Packing Corp., 250 Mass. 198 , it was held that the fact that pieces of glass got into- the can during the preparation of spinach and before it was sealed warranted an inference of negligence.

1973Although the doctrine of res ipso loquitur does not apply to permit an inference of negligence from mere unwholesomeness, Bergantino v. General Baking Co., 298 Mass. 106 , it has been held that proof of the presence of a foreign substance in a sealed food container is sufficient to raise a presumption or inference of negligence on the part, of the manufacturer or seller of the food in question.

1972In New York the principle of res ipso loqui tur, as laid down in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 , had been applied -to the case of the exploding bottle in Mueller v. Leichner, 6 N.Y. 2d, 903 .

1972In New York the principle of res ipso loqui tur, as laid down in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 , had been applied -to the case of the exploding bottle in Mueller v. Leichner, 6 N.Y. 2d, 903 .

1970Greyhound Corp. v. Brown, — Ala. — 113 So. 2d 916 (Tire manufacturer liable to bus passenger for in juries sustained when bus left road and rolled over after front tire blew out while bus was rounding curve all due to defect in manufacture and not in road hazard).

1968The instant case is controlled by Conway v. Boston Elevated Ry., 255 Mass. 571 , in which the doctrine of res ipso loquitur was held to be inapplicable.

1967In the Evangelio case the court rejected the former rule expressed in Howard v. Lowell Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 322 Mass. 456 wherein it was held that it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict because there “was no evidence to show that the breaking of the bottle was due to any negligence of the defendant at its bottling plant or elsewhere, nor to warrant a finding that any defect in the bottle that the jury might have found caused it to break should have been discovered by the defendant by reasonable inspection.” The rule of negligence by inference, also referred to as

1966"What these requests were does not appear except that plaintiffs contended that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applied, citing Glaser v. Schroeder supra. The Supreme Court discussed the Glaser case noting that it had there held that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur did apply.

1964Pinney v. Hall, 156 Mass. 225, 225-226 .

1961Crocker v. Baltimore Dairy Lunch Co. 214 Mass. 177 .

1959He found that a statement made by LeBlanc to police officers, that he thought he was going to “black out” and tried to apply his brakes, “was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence.” Compare Carroll v. Bouley, 338 Mass. 625, 627-628 .

1946Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413 , Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408 , Tucker v. Haverhill Electric Co., 262 Mass. 81 , Pitman v. Lynn Gas & Electric Co., 241 Mass, 322, Olsen v. New England Fuel & Trans.

1946Kusick v. Thorndike & Hix, Inc., 224 Mass. 413 , Burnham v. Lincoln, 225 Mass. 408 , Tucker v. Haverhill Electric Co., 262 Mass. 81 , Pitman v. Lynn Gas & Electric Co., 241 Mass, 322, Olsen v. New England Fuel & Trans.

1943Mellace v. John P. Squire Co., 306 Mass. 515, at 516 .

1939Conley v. Town Taxi, Inc. 298 Mass. 130, 132 .

1939Commonly, negligence cannot be inferred from the mere happening of an accident, Marshall v. Carter, 301 Mass. 372, 378 , and the doctrine of res ipso loquitur does not apply to the facts in the case at bar.

1936Ryan v. Fall River Iron Works Co., 200 Mass. 188, at 192 ; DiLeo v. Eastern Mass. St.

1936Cook v. Newhall, 213 Mass. 392, at 395 ; St.

1930McDonough v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 436, 440 .

1930For example, in Stangy v. Boston Elevated Railway, 220 Mass. 414 , a coal wagon collided with the side of a trolley car.

1921It is not a case where “in the ordinary course of things such an accident could not happen unless from careless construction, inspection or use attributable to the employer.” Ragolsky v. Nurenberg, 211 Mass. 575, 576 .