res ipsa doctrine in Illinois

2022We reaffirmed this principle from Kolakowski in Gatlin, 137 Ill. 2d at 298-99 .

2007Gatlin v. Ruder, 137 Ill. 2d at 295 .

2022In so holding, the court declined to follow its own decision in Taylor v. City of Beardstown, 142 Ill.

2021Id. at 593 .

1992Spidle v. Steward (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 1, 10 , 402 N.E.2d 216, 220 ; Cassady v. Hendrickson (1985), 138 Ill.

1986(Spidle v. Steward (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 1, 10 , 402 N.E.2d 216, 220 ; Cassady v. Hendrickson (1985), 138 Ill.

1992App. 3d 1, 13 , 452 N.E.2d 751, 759 .) To submit a res ipsa claim to a jury, there must be evidence or testimony to establish the rare and unusual event or condition coupled with proof of a negligent act.

1986App. 3d 1, 13 , 452 N.E.2d 751, 759 .) To submit a res ipsa claim to a jury, there must be evidence or testimony to establish the rare and unusual event or condition coupled with proof of a negligent act.

1990On the basis of this evidence and the record as a whole, we hold it was not error for the trial court to send the case to the jury on a res ipsa instruction, particularly where the jury was expressly instructed that control on defendant’s part was a prerequisite to its liability. *** The verdict *** establishes that the jury was convinced that the injury would not have occurred except for the negligence of the [defendant] in the intervening period prior to the injury.” (Drewick, 42 Ill. 2d at 351-52 .) In the case at bar, as in Drewick, the trier of fact should decide who maintained control, R

1990On the basis of this evidence and the record as a whole, we hold it was not error for the trial court to send the case to the jury on a res ipsa instruction, particularly where the jury was expressly instructed that control on defendant's part was a prerequisite to its liability. * * * The verdict * * * establishes that the jury was convinced that the injury would not have occurred except for the negligence of the [defendant] in the intervening period prior to the injury." ( Drewick, 42 Ill.2d at 351-52 .) In the case at bar, as in Drewick , the trier of fact should decide who maintained contr

1973Freer v. Rowden (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 335 , 247 N.E.2d 635 ; Decatur & Macon County Hospital Ass’n v. Erie City Iron Works (1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 144 , 220 N.E.2d 590 ; Turner v. Wallace (1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 160 , 217 N.E.2d 11 ; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 918.

1973Freer v. Rowden (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 335 , 247 N.E.2d 635 ; Decatur & Macon County Hospital Ass’n v. Erie City Iron Works (1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 144 , 220 N.E.2d 590 ; Turner v. Wallace (1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 160 , 217 N.E.2d 11 ; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 918.

1973Freer v. Rowden (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 335 , 247 N.E.2d 635 ; Decatur & Macon County Hospital Ass’n v. Erie City Iron Works (1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 144 , 220 N.E.2d 590 ; Turner v. Wallace (1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 160 , 217 N.E.2d 11 ; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 918.

1969App.2d 160 , 217 NE2d 11 (1966), it is stated that if at the close of the case, the evidence fails to reveal the specific forces which produced the injury and there is sufficient proof to certain affirmative findings on each of the necessary elements from which the inference of negligence is permitted, the jury should be instructed in terms of res ipsa loquitur as well as specific negligence, but that if the evidence from all sources shows the facts and reveals the precise causes of the injury there remains nothing for inference and the res ipsa instruction should not be given.

2026Kaider v. Jamos, 2012 IL App (1st) 111109, ¶ 9 .

2022The court further held that no additional expert testimony was needed to establish Harden’s standard of care, saying: “In essence, the control element of the res ipsa doctrine is sufficient to establish a duty of care.” (Emphasis in original.) 2021 IL App (4th) 210038, ¶ 68 .

2022She relies on the principle that, “if the specific and actual force which initiated the motion or set the - 18 - instrumentality in operation were known unequivocally, leaving no reason for inference that some other unknown negligent act or force was responsible, the res ipsa doctrine could not even be invoked.” Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 539 . ¶ 62 As we explained in Kolakowski, 83 Ill. 2d at 397 , this “would be accurate if the evidence introduced by plaintiff conclusively established the exact cause of his injuries.” But where plaintiff’s expert merely opines upon some cause of the injury, rat

2022She relies on the principle that, “if the specific and actual force which initiated the motion or set the - 18 - instrumentality in operation were known unequivocally, leaving no reason for inference that some other unknown negligent act or force was responsible, the res ipsa doctrine could not even be invoked.” Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 539 . ¶ 62 As we explained in Kolakowski, 83 Ill. 2d at 397 , this “would be accurate if the evidence introduced by plaintiff conclusively established the exact cause of his injuries.” But where plaintiff’s expert merely opines upon some cause of the injury, rat

2021App. 3d 554, 558 , 542 N.E.2d 746, 748-49 (1989). ¶ 42 “The trial court must decide whether the doctrine applies as a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Willis v. Morales, 2020 IL App (1st) 180718, ¶ 36 , 169 N.E.3d 74 . “[A] plaintiff seeking to rely on the res ipsa doctrine must plead and prove that he or she was injured (1) in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, (2) by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control.” Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 531-32 , 877 N.E.2d 1064, 1076 (2007). ¶ 43 “If the plaintiff was

2021App. 3d 554, 558 , 542 N.E.2d 746, 748-49 (1989). ¶ 42 “The trial court must decide whether the doctrine applies as a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Willis v. Morales, 2020 IL App (1st) 180718, ¶ 36 , 169 N.E.3d 74 . “[A] plaintiff seeking to rely on the res ipsa doctrine must plead and prove that he or she was injured (1) in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, (2) by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control.” Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 531-32 , 877 N.E.2d 1064, 1076 (2007). ¶ 43 “If the plaintiff was

2007The nature and purpose of the res ipsa doctrine were aptly described by this court in Metz v. Central Illinois Electric & Gas Co., 32 Ill. 2d 446, 448-49 (1965), where we wrote: “When a thing which caused the injury is shown to be under the control or management of the party charged with negligence and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of things would not have happened if the person so charged had used proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the 4 Because the negligence count based on res ipsa was dismissed prior to comme

1994(Gatlin v. Ruder (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 284 , 560 N.E.2d 586 ; Imig v. Beck (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 18 , 503 N.E.2d 324 .) In Krump v. Highlander Ice Cream Co. (1961), 30 Ill.

1994(Gatlin v. Ruder (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 284 , 560 N.E.2d 586 ; Imig v. Beck (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 18 , 503 N.E.2d 324 .) In Krump v. Highlander Ice Cream Co. (1961), 30 Ill.

1994(Gatlin v. Ruder (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 284 , 560 N.E.2d 586 ; Imig v. Beck (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 18 , 503 N.E.2d 324 .) In Krump v. Highlander Ice Cream Co. (1961), 30 Ill.

1983Plaintiffs strongly urge that the trial court’s denial of their instruction was inexplicable in view of the evidence and the recent holding in Lynch v. Precision Machine Shop, Ltd. (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 266 , 443 N.E.2d 569 .

1983Plaintiffs strongly urge that the trial court’s denial of their instruction was inexplicable in view of the evidence and the recent holding in Lynch v. Precision Machine Shop, Ltd. (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 266 , 443 N.E.2d 569 .

1981(May v. Columbian Rope Co. (1963), 40 Ill.

1980Mr. Justice Tobriner stated: "To give a res ipsa instruction under such circumstances invites a purely speculative leap and entrusts the jury with unreviewable power to impose or withhold liability as it sees fit." ( Clark v. Gibbons (1967), 66 Cal.2d 399, 415-16 , 426 P.2d 525, 536-37 , 58 Cal. Rptr. 125, 136-37 .) Mr. Justice Tobriner further observed: "[T]he rarity of an event may well bear no relationship to negligence.

1980Mr. Justice Tobriner stated: "To give a res ipsa instruction under such circumstances invites a purely speculative leap and entrusts the jury with unreviewable power to impose or withhold liability as it sees fit." ( Clark v. Gibbons (1967), 66 Cal.2d 399, 415-16 , 426 P.2d 525, 536-37 , 58 Cal. Rptr. 125, 136-37 .) Mr. Justice Tobriner further observed: "[T]he rarity of an event may well bear no relationship to negligence.

1973A similar argument was rejected in Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 116 Ill.App.2d 109 , 253 N.E.2d 636 , aff’d 46 Ill.2d 288 , 263 N.E.2d 103 , where a can of Drano exploded while in the possession of the purchaser some 10 months after it had left defendants’ control.

1973A similar argument was rejected in Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 116 Ill.App.2d 109 , 253 N.E.2d 636 , aff’d 46 Ill.2d 288 , 263 N.E.2d 103 , where a can of Drano exploded while in the possession of the purchaser some 10 months after it had left defendants’ control.

1973Freer v. Rowden (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 335 , 247 N.E.2d 635 ; Decatur & Macon County Hospital Ass’n v. Erie City Iron Works (1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 144 , 220 N.E.2d 590 ; Turner v. Wallace (1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 160 , 217 N.E.2d 11 ; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 918.

1973Freer v. Rowden (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 335 , 247 N.E.2d 635 ; Decatur & Macon County Hospital Ass’n v. Erie City Iron Works (1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 144 , 220 N.E.2d 590 ; Turner v. Wallace (1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 160 , 217 N.E.2d 11 ; 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 918.

1973A similar argument was rejected in Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 116 Ill.App.2d 109 , 253 N.E.2d 636 , aff’d 46 Ill.2d 288 , 263 N.E.2d 103 , where a can of Drano exploded while in the possession of the purchaser some 10 months after it had left defendants’ control.

1973A similar argument was rejected in Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 116 Ill.App.2d 109 , 253 N.E.2d 636 , aff’d 46 Ill.2d 288 , 263 N.E.2d 103 , where a can of Drano exploded while in the possession of the purchaser some 10 months after it had left defendants’ control.