res ipsa doctrine in Texas

2023Co., 638 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. 1982). 6 See Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 250 (“[M]eaning ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ . . . [res ipsa] has come to signify that in certain limited types of cases[,] 4 that “invite[s] res ipsa loquitur treatment” is when a foreign object is left in a patient after surgery. 7 Our caselaw has articulated two mandatory elements for the doctrine’s application: (1) the character of the accident must be such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury must be shown to have been under the management and contro

2023See, e.g., Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990) (citing 8 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 251 ). 9 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 252 . 10 Id. at 251 . 5 instruction is “essentially [a] ‘no evidence’ point[]”. 11 Evidentiary support for the “type of accident” and “control” factors is the minimum requirement for a res ipsa instruction and will not entitle the plaintiff to an instruction in every case. 12 “[I]n any Res ipsa case, the particular facts surrounding the event are extremely important.” 13 That means that determining the applicability of res ipsa is a case-specific exercise.

2023See, e.g., Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990) (citing 8 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 251 ). 9 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 252 . 10 Id. at 251 . 5 instruction is “essentially [a] ‘no evidence’ point[]”. 11 Evidentiary support for the “type of accident” and “control” factors is the minimum requirement for a res ipsa instruction and will not entitle the plaintiff to an instruction in every case. 12 “[I]n any Res ipsa case, the particular facts surrounding the event are extremely important.” 13 That means that determining the applicability of res ipsa is a case-specific exercise.

2003Haddock v. Arnspiger , 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 ( Tex. 1990).

2023Co., 638 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. 1982). 6 See Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 250 (“[M]eaning ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ . . . [res ipsa] has come to signify that in certain limited types of cases[,] 4 that “invite[s] res ipsa loquitur treatment” is when a foreign object is left in a patient after surgery. 7 Our caselaw has articulated two mandatory elements for the doctrine’s application: (1) the character of the accident must be such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury must be shown to have been under the management and contro

2023Co., 638 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. 1982). 6 See Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 250 (“[M]eaning ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ . . . [res ipsa] has come to signify that in certain limited types of cases[,] 4 that “invite[s] res ipsa loquitur treatment” is when a foreign object is left in a patient after surgery. 7 Our caselaw has articulated two mandatory elements for the doctrine’s application: (1) the character of the accident must be such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury must be shown to have been under the management and contro

2025Discussion of the pleadings requirements only surfaces in a footnote of the dissenting opinion, where Justice Higley wrote, almost as an aside, that “[i]f a plaintiff’s petition ‘gives fair notice that he is not relying solely on specific acts but instead intends to also rely on any other negligent acts reasonably inferable from the circumstances of the accident, his pleading is sufficient to invoke the res ipsa doctrine.’” Sanders, 498 S.W.3d at 263 n.1 (quoting Tex. Pipe Bending Co. v. Gibbs, 580 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex. Civ.

2016If a plaintiff's, petition “gives fair notice that he is not relying solely on specific acts but instead intends to also rely on any other negligent acts’ reasonably inferable from the circumstances of the accident, his pleading is sufficient to invoke the res ipsa doctrine.” Tex. Pipe Bending Co. v. Gibbs, 580 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1979), writ refused n.r.e., 584 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.1979).

2023Co., 638 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. 1982). 6 See Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 250 (“[M]eaning ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ . . . [res ipsa] has come to signify that in certain limited types of cases[,] 4 that “invite[s] res ipsa loquitur treatment” is when a foreign object is left in a patient after surgery. 7 Our caselaw has articulated two mandatory elements for the doctrine’s application: (1) the character of the accident must be such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury must be shown to have been under the management and contro

2023INST. 2010). 13 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 248 . 14 Id. at 253 . 15 Sterner, 632 S.W.2d at 573-574 . 16 Bond v. Otis Elevator Co., 388 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tex. 1965). 6 vehicle is defective.” 17 A res ipsa instruction should not be given when it is used to suggest that liability for an accident can be imposed without negligence.

2023INST. 2010). 13 Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 248 . 14 Id. at 253 . 15 Sterner, 632 S.W.2d at 573-574 . 16 Bond v. Otis Elevator Co., 388 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tex. 1965). 6 vehicle is defective.” 17 A res ipsa instruction should not be given when it is used to suggest that liability for an accident can be imposed without negligence.

2000Id . at 918, Citing Bond v. Otis Elevator Company, 388 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. 1965) and further: the control that is required for the application of the res ipsa rule is not necessarily control exercised at the time of the injury, but it may be control exercised at the time of the negligent act which subsequently leads to the injury.

2025See Aguilar v. Trujillo, 162 S.W.3d 839, 850 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (“The res ipsa doctrine is inapplicable to this case.

2018“The effect of successfully invoking the res ipsa doctrine is that the plaintiff can survive no-evidence procedural challenges.” Aguilar, 162 S.W.3d at 850 .

2025Res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable where, as here (1) the plaintiff cannot rely on general knowledge to show that the accident would not occur without negligence, and (2) the plaintiff has not produced expert Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc., 626 S.W.2d 845, 847 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1981, no writ) (“A plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the res ipsa doctrine when he pleads specific acts of negligence and does not give the defendant fair notice in his pleadings that he intends to rely upon the doctrine.”); Estrada v. Central Power & Light Co., 336 S.W.2d 768, 768 (Tex. Civ.

2025Res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable where, as here (1) the plaintiff cannot rely on general knowledge to show that the accident would not occur without negligence, and (2) the plaintiff has not produced expert Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc., 626 S.W.2d 845, 847 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1981, no writ) (“A plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the res ipsa doctrine when he pleads specific acts of negligence and does not give the defendant fair notice in his pleadings that he intends to rely upon the doctrine.”); Estrada v. Central Power & Light Co., 336 S.W.2d 768, 768 (Tex. Civ.

2025App.—San Antonio 1960, writ ref’d) (“In order to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur there are four elements which must be pleaded and proved: [stating elements].”) (emphasis added); Prieto v. Val Verde Memorial Hospital, 747 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988, no writ) (“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be invoked where the petition alleges specific acts of negligence on the part of a defendant, and does not generally allege negligence or specifically plead reliance on res ipsa.”) (citing Francis v. Bob Meador Company, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex. Civ.

2025App.—San Antonio 1960, writ ref’d) (“In order to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur there are four elements which must be pleaded and proved: [stating elements].”) (emphasis added); Prieto v. Val Verde Memorial Hospital, 747 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988, no writ) (“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be invoked where the petition alleges specific acts of negligence on the part of a defendant, and does not generally allege negligence or specifically plead reliance on res ipsa.”) (citing Francis v. Bob Meador Company, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex. Civ.

2023Ctr., 307 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Tex. 2010).

2023Co., 638 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex. 1982). 6 See Bell, 517 S.W.2d at 250 (“[M]eaning ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ . . . [res ipsa] has come to signify that in certain limited types of cases[,] 4 that “invite[s] res ipsa loquitur treatment” is when a foreign object is left in a patient after surgery. 7 Our caselaw has articulated two mandatory elements for the doctrine’s application: (1) the character of the accident must be such that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the instrumentality causing the injury must be shown to have been under the management and contro

2021Schindler argues that the instruction was harmful and requires reversal because (1) the instruction was “incorrect law” that was inapplicable to the case and (2) it related to a “contested, critical issue[,]” citing to Glenn v. Leal, 596 S.W.3d 769 , 772 (Tex. 2020) and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corp., 482 S.W.3d 559, 571 (Tex. 2016).

2018Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 196 (Tex. 2012) (noting “the long- recognized principle that a physician who exercises ordinary care . . . is not liable to a patient for a bad outcome”); Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 880 (stating breach of standard of care cannot be inferred from existence of injury alone because doctrine of res ipsa 11 loquitor does not generally apply in medical malpractice cases).

2018Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 196 (Tex. 2012) (noting “the long- recognized principle that a physician who exercises ordinary care . . . is not liable to a patient for a bad outcome”); Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 880 (stating breach of standard of care cannot be inferred from existence of injury alone because doctrine of res ipsa 11 loquitor does not generally apply in medical malpractice cases).

2004Inc ., 820 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a res ipsa instruction when plaintiffs presented no expert knowledge that concrete walls do not ordinarily fall in the absence of negligence, and general knowledge could not support the contention).

2003See Trans Am. , 39 S.W.3d at 650 .

1988See Harmon v. Sohio Pipeline Co., 623 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.1981) (oil pipeline spill).