res ipsa loquitur doctrine in Ohio

2007"In effect, before applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the court must be warranted in taking judicial notice of the fact that the accident does not happen in the ordinary course of events unless there is negligence." Id. at 511 . {¶ 18} "Generally, the amount of care required to constitute ordinary care, is commensurate with the danger involved.

2004Oberlin v. Friedman (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 1 , 8 , 34 O.O.2d 1, 5 , 213 N.E.2d 168 , 173 . `* * * [B]efore applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the court must be warranted in taking judicial notice of the fact that the accident does not happen in the ordinary course of events unless there is negligence. * * * Where no probability of negligence is indicated by the mere happening of the accident, the jury should not be permitted to infer negligence without some evidence tending to prove it.' Soltz v. Colony Recreation Ctr. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 503 , 511 , 39 O.O. 322, 325-326 , 87 N.E.2d 16

2006Johnson v. Hammond (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 125, 127 , 547 N.E.2d 1004 ; Cunningham v. Children’s Hosp., 10th Dist.

2001More applicable here, in our opinion, is the case of Johnson v. Hammond (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 125 , where the court concluded, after a discussion of the same issue now before us, that "the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case of the burden of presenting expert medical testimony on the requisite standard of care and skill." In that case, as in the present case, the plaintiffs contended that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which is only a rule of evidence, relieved them of their burden of presenting expert medical evidence.

2015The trial court rejected this theory. {¶ 28} “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which permits, but does not require, the jury to draw an inference of negligence in a case where the instrumentality causing injury is shown to have been within the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and where the circumstances attending the injury were of such a character in themselves as to warrant the conclusion that a lack of ordinary care on the part of the defendant was responsible for the occurrence or condition causing the injury.” Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, 148 Ohio St.

1961(Paragraph one of the syllabus of Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restauramt, Inc., 148 Ohio St., 119 , and paragraph one of the syllabus of Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center, 151 Ohio St., 503 , approved and followed.)” The elements necessary to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as set forth in the Schafer dose, supra, namely, exclusive control and management of the instrumentality causing the injury, are certainly present in this case.

2015Ctr., 125 Ohio St.3d 300 , 2010-Ohio-1041, ¶ 17 . 5 {¶10} Eclipse did not argue in its motion that it was entitled to summary judgment because Ohio Bell could not satisfy the requirements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

2015Ctr., 125 Ohio St.3d 300 , 2010-Ohio-1041, ¶ 17 . 5 {¶10} Eclipse did not argue in its motion that it was entitled to summary judgment because Ohio Bell could not satisfy the requirements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

1975In Beeler v. Ponting (1927), 116 Ohio St. 432 the Supreme Court said, in its syllabus: “Where the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the trial of a negligent suit are such as would ordinarily call for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is the duty of the trial court to charge upon that subject, but the omission to do so in the absence of a request of counsel for an instruction upon that subject is not reversible error.” At page 433 of the opinion, the court said: “That doctrine [res ipsa loquitur] being a rule of evidence, it is not necessary to be pleaded *

1951Beeler v. Ponting, 116 Ohio St., 432, 433 , 156 N. E., 599 ; 29 Ohio Jurisprudence, 617, 633, Sections 144, 145.

1951Beeler v. Ponting, 116 Ohio St., 432, 433 , 156 N. E., 599 ; 29 Ohio Jurisprudence, 617, 633, Sections 144, 145.

1950In Beeler v. Ponting, 116 Oh St 432, 156 N. E. 599 , the court in a negligence action omitted in a proper case to charge on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

2001Kniskern v. Somerford Twp. (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 189 , 198 .

1998Kniskern v. Somerford Twp. (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 189 , 198 , citing Wiley v. Gibson (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 463 , 465 .

2001In regard to the application of the plain error doctrine in civil cases, the Ohio Supreme Court in Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , syllabus, held: “In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” The court, after noting t

2001In regard to the application of the plain error doctrine in civil cases, the Ohio Supreme Court in Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , syllabus, held: “In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” The court, after noting t

1980Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo., 97 .” This basic principle of the application of res ipsa loquitur to water main cases was set forth in Adam Hat Stores, Inc., v. Kansas City (Mo. 1958), 316 S.W. 2d 594 , where it was held in effect that a plaintiff seeking to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a negligence action need not eliminate all reasonable non-negligent causes of his injury.

1956Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo., 97 .” Also, in Farina v. First National Bank, 72 Oh Ap 109, the court says at page 115: “The res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies only when the facts proved by the plaintiff admit of the single inference that the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent.” It is next urged that the court committed prejudicial error in giving special instruction No. 4, to-wit: “If you find, members of the jury, that the permanent wave as given by the defendant would not be injurious to a normal individual, and that the dermatitis which the plaintiff had w

1960Co. v. Shieder, 88 Tex., 152, 163 , 30 S. W., 902 : “* # * When the undisputed evidence adduced on the trial establishes prima facie, as a matter of law, contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, then the burden of proof is upon him to show facts from which the jury, upon the whole case, may find him free from negligence; otherwise, the court may instruct a verdict for defendant, there being no issue of fact for the jury.” In the instant case, for some unexplained reason, the unfortunate motorist, who- nevertheless had control of the vehicle, thereby calling for the application of the

1960Co. v. Shieder, 88 Tex., 152, 163 , 30 S. W., 902 : “* # * When the undisputed evidence adduced on the trial establishes prima facie, as a matter of law, contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, then the burden of proof is upon him to show facts from which the jury, upon the whole case, may find him free from negligence; otherwise, the court may instruct a verdict for defendant, there being no issue of fact for the jury.” In the instant case, for some unexplained reason, the unfortunate motorist, who- nevertheless had control of the vehicle, thereby calling for the application of the

1962Co. v. Sutherland, 115 Ohio St., 262 , where a small piece of glass punched out of the defendant’s streetcar window fell on plaintiff. *231 Since the Supreme Court decided the Bolts case, the court has decided other cases involving the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

1929Co. v. Sutherland, 115 Ohio St., 262, 264 , 152 N. E., 726, 727 , a quotation is made from 29 Cyc., 624: “The maxim res ipsa loquitur relates merely to negligence prima facie and is available without excluding all other possibilities, but it does not apply where there is direct evidence as to the cause, or where the facts are such that an inference that the accident was due to a cause other than defendant’s negligence could be drawn as reasonably as that it was due to his negligence.” This, as well as the language of the court in the cases of Loomis v. Railways Co., supra, and Glowacki v. Rail

2026Instead, the appellees, and the trial court, erroneously relied upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to make this analytical leap. {¶21} Res ipsa loquitor was recently discussed by this Court in Austin v. OhioHealth Mansfield Hosp., 2025-Ohio-4932 (5th Dist.): "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a substantive rule of law furnishing an independent ground for recovery." Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167, 169 , 406 N.E.2d 1385 (1980).

2025Snider v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 664 Fed.Appx. 463 (6th Cir. 2016).

2022No. 05AP-289, 2006-Ohio-1300, ¶ 6 , quoting Jennings Buick at 169.

2019We must make “‘every reasonable presumption * * * in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts.’” Id., quoting Seasons Coal Co. at 80, fn. 3. “‘If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction,’” we are “‘bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the * * * judgment [and] most favorable to sustaining the * * * judgment.’” Eastley, supra, quoting Seasons Coal Co., supra. 5 {¶19} Moreover, “res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which permits the trier of fact to infer negligence on the part of the defendant from the circumstances surrounding the injury to pl

2015The trial court rejected this theory. {¶ 28} “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which permits, but does not require, the jury to draw an inference of negligence in a case where the instrumentality causing injury is shown to have been within the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and where the circumstances attending the injury were of such a character in themselves as to warrant the conclusion that a lack of ordinary care on the part of the defendant was responsible for the occurrence or condition causing the injury.” Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, 148 Ohio St.

2015The trial court rejected this theory. {¶ 28} “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which permits, but does not require, the jury to draw an inference of negligence in a case where the instrumentality causing injury is shown to have been within the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and where the circumstances attending the injury were of such a character in themselves as to warrant the conclusion that a lack of ordinary care on the part of the defendant was responsible for the occurrence or condition causing the injury.” Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, 148 Ohio St.

2015According to Gregory, Park Layne had exclusive management and control of the building, including the stairwell, and the accident would not have happened if ordinary care had been used. {¶ 22} With respect to summary judgment, “[a] trial court may grant a moving party summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56 if there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining to be litigated, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, who is entitled to have the evidence construed m

2015According to Gregory, Park Layne had exclusive management and control of the building, including the stairwell, and the accident would not have happened if ordinary care had been used. {¶ 22} With respect to summary judgment, “[a] trial court may grant a moving party summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56 if there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining to be litigated, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, who is entitled to have the evidence construed m

2013No. 95APE04-488 (Feb. 22, 1996); Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (1991). {¶ 21} Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to appellant, appellant has failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellees created the hazard, had actual knowledge of the hazard or that the hazard existed for a period of time such that Wal-Mart should have known of its presence and either removed the hazard or warned appellant of it. {¶ 22} Appellant also sets forth an argument that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case so that ap

2012Ctr., 117 Ohio App.3d 427, 431 , 690 N.E.2d 946 (10th Dist. 1997). {¶13} Crucial to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that the plaintiff must establish that the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive management and control of the defendant and that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed.

2012Ctr., 117 Ohio App.3d 427, 431 , 690 N.E.2d 946 (10th Dist. 1997). {¶13} Crucial to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that the plaintiff must establish that the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive management and control of the defendant and that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed.