72 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Bernfeldgreen2 sentences1997Dover, 334 Md. at 237 , 638 A.2d at 765 (“[Njumerous Maryland cases have explained that a plaintiffs ‘attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.’ ”) (quoting Smith v. Bernfeld, 226 Md. 400, 409 , 174 A.2d 53, 57 (1961)). 1997Dover, 334 Md. at 237 , 638 A.2d at 765 (“[Njumerous Maryland cases have explained that a plaintiffs ‘attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.’ ”) (quoting Smith v. Bernfeld, 226 Md. 400, 409 , 174 A.2d 53, 57 (1961)). | 3 | 6 |
Dover Elevator Co. v. Swanngreen2 sentences1997The United States District Court seems to suggest by its phrasing of question number one that Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann, 334 Md. 231 , 638 A.2d 762 (1994), stands for the proposition that the pleading of specific acts of negligence will preclude a plaintiff from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1997The United States District Court seems to suggest by its phrasing of question number one that Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann, 334 Md. 231 , 638 A.2d 762 (1994), stands for the proposition that the pleading of specific acts of negligence will preclude a plaintiff from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 2 | 5 |
Peterson v. Underwoodgreen2 sentences2009See Peterson v. Underwood, 258 Md. 9, 19 , 264 A.2d 851 (1970). 2009See Peterson v. Underwood, 258 Md. 9, 19 , 264 A.2d 851 (1970). | 2 | 5 |
Leikach v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Baltimore, Inc.green2 sentences1986Where “the probabilities are at best evenly divided between negligence and its absence, it becomes the duty of the court to [conclude] that there is no sufficient proof.” Gleason, supra, 36 Md.App. at 567, 374 A.2d 408 (quoting Leikach, supra, 261 Md. at 549, 276 A.2d 81 ). *361 We do not believe the trial judge clearly erred in finding that appellant was not entitled to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1986Where “the probabilities are at best evenly divided between negligence and its absence, it becomes the duty of the court to [conclude] that there is no sufficient proof.” Gleason, supra, 36 Md.App. at 567, 374 A.2d 408 (quoting Leikach, supra, 261 Md. at 549, 276 A.2d 81 ). *361 We do not believe the trial judge clearly erred in finding that appellant was not entitled to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 2 | 4 |
Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbedgreen2 sentences2018A plaintiff may instead invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to "rely on the inference of negligence to be deduced from all the circumstances." Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed , 202 Md. 253 , 262, 96 A.2d 241 (1953). 2018A plaintiff may instead invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to "rely on the inference of negligence to be deduced from all the circumstances." Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed , 202 Md. 253 , 262, 96 A.2d 241 (1953). | 1 | 8 |
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. v. Carrollgreen2 sentences1971Co. v. Beckley, 173 Md. 202 , *499 208, 195 A. 550 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 362 , 96 A. 2d 241 .” The case of Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137 , 106 A. 2d 98 , set out the principle, at page 146, recognized and approved in Blankenship , “* * * that whether plaintiff or defendant shows that the injury complained of might have been caused either by the defendant’s negligence or by the act of another, for which the defendant was not responsible, the doctrine will not apply.” At that stage of a case when it cannot be said that everything relative to it is known, an 1971Co. v. Beckley, 173 Md. 202 , *499 208, 195 A. 550 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 362 , 96 A. 2d 241 .” The case of Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137 , 106 A. 2d 98 , set out the principle, at page 146, recognized and approved in Blankenship , “* * * that whether plaintiff or defendant shows that the injury complained of might have been caused either by the defendant’s negligence or by the act of another, for which the defendant was not responsible, the doctrine will not apply.” At that stage of a case when it cannot be said that everything relative to it is known, an | 1 | 7 |
Munzert v. American Stores Co.green2 sentences1975First, we consider the claims of negligence, which, as we have indicated, are bottomed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1(a) In Leikach v. Royal Crown, 261 Md. 541, 547-48 , 276 A. 2d 81 (1971), the most recent exploding-bottle case decided by this Court, we repeated the three elements necessary for the application of res ipsa loquitur in Maryland which we had enunciated in Munzert v. American Stores, 232 Md. 97, 104 , 192 A. 2d 59 (1963): “1. 1975First, we consider the claims of negligence, which, as we have indicated, are bottomed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1(a) In Leikach v. Royal Crown, 261 Md. 541, 547-48 , 276 A. 2d 81 (1971), the most recent exploding-bottle case decided by this Court, we repeated the three elements necessary for the application of res ipsa loquitur in Maryland which we had enunciated in Munzert v. American Stores, 232 Md. 97, 104 , 192 A. 2d 59 (1963): “1. | 1 | 7 |
Bettigole v. Dienergreen2 sentences1993Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537 , 124 A. 2d 265 ; State, Use of Kalives v. Baltimore Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, supra. Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply. 1993Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537 , 124 A. 2d 265 ; State, Use of Kalives v. Baltimore Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, supra. Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply. | 1 | 5 |
Smith v. Baltimore Transit Co.green2 sentences1962It was in that context that we said (assuming the question of res ipsa loquitur to have been properly reserved for review) that “the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.” ( 226 Md. at 409 .) Each of the cases cited in support of this statement (Smith v. Baltimore Transit Co., 214 Md. 560, 566 , 136 A. 2d 386 ; Maszczenski v. Myers, 212 Md. 346, 352 , 129 A. 2d 109 ; Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137, 145 , 106 A. 2d 98 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 262-63 , 96 A. 2d 241 ; Stras 1962It was in that context that we said (assuming the question of res ipsa loquitur to have been properly reserved for review) that “the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.” ( 226 Md. at 409 .) Each of the cases cited in support of this statement (Smith v. Baltimore Transit Co., 214 Md. 560, 566 , 136 A. 2d 386 ; Maszczenski v. Myers, 212 Md. 346, 352 , 129 A. 2d 109 ; Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137, 145 , 106 A. 2d 98 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 262-63 , 96 A. 2d 241 ; Stras | 1 | 4 |
Meda v. Browngreen2 sentences1994The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has also been described as “ ‘a thing of fearful and wonderful complexity and ramifications, and the problems of its application and effect have filled the courts of all our states with a multitude of decisions, baffling and perplexing alike to students, attorneys and judges.’ ” Meda v. Brown, 318 Md. 418, 422 , 569 A.2d 202, 204 (1990) (quoting William L. 1994The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has also been described as “ ‘a thing of fearful and wonderful complexity and ramifications, and the problems of its application and effect have filled the courts of all our states with a multitude of decisions, baffling and perplexing alike to students, attorneys and judges.’ ” Meda v. Brown, 318 Md. 418, 422 , 569 A.2d 202, 204 (1990) (quoting William L. | 1 | 3 |
Frenkil v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1967This Court has repeatedly held, when considering the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that the doctrine will not apply when it appears that the injury may have been caused by the independent act of a third person or intervening cause. “* * * in such a situation, the plaintiff is not permitted to recover until he excludes the independent neglect of the third party as the efficient and proximate cause of the injury.” Frenkil v. Johnson, 175 Md. 592, 605 , 3 A. 2d 479, 484 (1939); State v. Prince George's County, 207 Md. 91, 104-05 , 113 A. 2d 397, 403 (1955); Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 1967This Court has repeatedly held, when considering the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that the doctrine will not apply when it appears that the injury may have been caused by the independent act of a third person or intervening cause. “* * * in such a situation, the plaintiff is not permitted to recover until he excludes the independent neglect of the third party as the efficient and proximate cause of the injury.” Frenkil v. Johnson, 175 Md. 592, 605 , 3 A. 2d 479, 484 (1939); State v. Prince George's County, 207 Md. 91, 104-05 , 113 A. 2d 397, 403 (1955); Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. | 1 | 3 |
Lane v. Calvertgreen2 sentences1988Citing to the aforementioned decisions, the Court has said on several occasions, “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537, 541 , 124 A.2d 265, 267 (1956); Lane v. Calvert, 215 Md. 457, 463 , 138 A.2d 902, 905 (1958); Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Genda, *342 255 Md. 616, 625 , 258 A.2d 595, 600 (1969); Nolan v. Dillon, 261 Md. 516, 534 , 276 A.2d 36, 46 (1971). 1988Citing to the aforementioned decisions, the Court has said on several occasions, “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537, 541 , 124 A.2d 265, 267 (1956); Lane v. Calvert, 215 Md. 457, 463 , 138 A.2d 902, 905 (1958); Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Genda, *342 255 Md. 616, 625 , 258 A.2d 595, 600 (1969); Nolan v. Dillon, 261 Md. 516, 534 , 276 A.2d 36, 46 (1971). | 1 | 3 |
Hanes v. State, Use of Lammgreen2 sentences2009Thus, the Court was able to say, “[W]e think enough was proved to permit an inference of negligence,” id. at 34 , 202 A.2d at 367 , as well as to say, “We think the appellees made out a prima facie case of negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur[.]” Id. at 35, 202 A.2d at 367 . 2009Thus, the Court was able to say, “[W]e think enough was proved to permit an inference of negligence,” id. at 34 , 202 A.2d at 367 , as well as to say, “We think the appellees made out a prima facie case of negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur[.]” Id. at 35, 202 A.2d at 367 . | 1 | 2 |
Holzhauer v. Saks & Co.green2 sentences2004In order to rely successfully upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a casualty of a kind that does not ordinarily occur absent negligence, (2) that was caused by an instrumentality exclusively in the defendant’s control, and (3) that was not caused by an act or omission of the plaintiff.” Holzhauer v. Saks & Co., 346 Md. 328, 335-36 , 697 A.2d 89 (1997). 2004In order to rely successfully upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a casualty of a kind that does not ordinarily occur absent negligence, (2) that was caused by an instrumentality exclusively in the defendant’s control, and (3) that was not caused by an act or omission of the plaintiff.” Holzhauer v. Saks & Co., 346 Md. 328, 335-36 , 697 A.2d 89 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Gendagreen2 sentences1988Citing to the aforementioned decisions, the Court has said on several occasions, “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537, 541 , 124 A.2d 265, 267 (1956); Lane v. Calvert, 215 Md. 457, 463 , 138 A.2d 902, 905 (1958); Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Genda, *342 255 Md. 616, 625 , 258 A.2d 595, 600 (1969); Nolan v. Dillon, 261 Md. 516, 534 , 276 A.2d 36, 46 (1971). 1988Citing to the aforementioned decisions, the Court has said on several occasions, “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” Bettigole v. Diener, 210 Md. 537, 541 , 124 A.2d 265, 267 (1956); Lane v. Calvert, 215 Md. 457, 463 , 138 A.2d 902, 905 (1958); Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Genda, *342 255 Md. 616, 625 , 258 A.2d 595, 600 (1969); Nolan v. Dillon, 261 Md. 516, 534 , 276 A.2d 36, 46 (1971). | 1 | 2 |
| Joyce A. Robinson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| R. P. Dugas v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Linesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ristaino v. Flannerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Memorial Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terrell v. Lincoln Motel, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Linesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nolan v. Dillongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gleason v. Jack Alan Enterprises, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Price v. McDonaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stoskin v. Prenskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Parr v. Board of County Commissionersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Antonelli v. Pughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nalee, Inc. v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences1994It was in that context that we said ... that ‘the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.’ ” 228 Md. at 532 , 180 A.2d at 680 (quoting Bernfeld, 226 Md. at 409 , 174 A.2d at 57 ). 1994It was in that context that we said ... that ‘the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.’ ” 228 Md. at 532 , 180 A.2d at 680 (quoting Bernfeld, 226 Md. at 409 , 174 A.2d at 57 ). | 7 | 1964–1996 |
Strasburger v. Vogel
green
2 sentences1978He argues, however, that Fields, by introducing the statement he gave to the police, was precluded from relying on res ipsa loquitur under Strasburger v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85 , 63 A. 202 (1906) and Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, supra. In Hickory, the plaintiff attempted to establish a cause of action based on negligence by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1978He argues, however, that Fields, by introducing the statement he gave to the police, was precluded from relying on res ipsa loquitur under Strasburger v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85 , 63 A. 202 (1906) and Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, supra. In Hickory, the plaintiff attempted to establish a cause of action based on negligence by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 6 | 1922–1993 |
Blankenship v. Wagner
green
2 sentences1993If any confusion remained after Jacobs, a later case, Blankenship v. Wagner, 261 Md. 37 , 273 A.2d 412 (1971), made clear that an attempt to prove specific acts of negligence does not necessarily preclude reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 1993If any confusion remained after Jacobs, a later case, Blankenship v. Wagner, 261 Md. 37 , 273 A.2d 412 (1971), made clear that an attempt to prove specific acts of negligence does not necessarily preclude reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. | 4 | 1971–1993 |
Maszczenski v. Myers
green
2 sentences1962It was in that context that we said (assuming the question of res ipsa loquitur to have been properly reserved for review) that “the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.” ( 226 Md. at 409 .) Each of the cases cited in support of this statement (Smith v. Baltimore Transit Co., 214 Md. 560, 566 , 136 A. 2d 386 ; Maszczenski v. Myers, 212 Md. 346, 352 , 129 A. 2d 109 ; Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137, 145 , 106 A. 2d 98 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 262-63 , 96 A. 2d 241 ; Stras 1962It was in that context that we said (assuming the question of res ipsa loquitur to have been properly reserved for review) that “the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish specific grounds of alleged negligence precludes recourse to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.” ( 226 Md. at 409 .) Each of the cases cited in support of this statement (Smith v. Baltimore Transit Co., 214 Md. 560, 566 , 136 A. 2d 386 ; Maszczenski v. Myers, 212 Md. 346, 352 , 129 A. 2d 109 ; Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137, 145 , 106 A. 2d 98 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 262-63 , 96 A. 2d 241 ; Stras | 4 | 1957–1993 |
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1993The first element of Hicks requires only that the “casualty [was] of a sort which usually does not occur in the absence of negligence.” Hicks, 25 Md.App. at 516 , 337 A.2d 744 (emphasis added). [T]he majority of cases hold that a plaintiff to come within the res ipsa loquitur doctrine need not show such a state of facts surrounding the accident as excludes any reasonable hypothesis except defendant’s negligence. 1993The first element of Hicks requires only that the “casualty [was] of a sort which usually does not occur in the absence of negligence.” Hicks, 25 Md.App. at 516 , 337 A.2d 744 (emphasis added). [T]he majority of cases hold that a plaintiff to come within the res ipsa loquitur doctrine need not show such a state of facts surrounding the accident as excludes any reasonable hypothesis except defendant’s negligence. | 3 | 1977–1993 |
Short v. Wells
green
2 sentences1975This rule is not applicable, however, where, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. 2 That doctrine was described in Short v. Wells, 249 Md. 491, 496 , 240 A. 2d 224 (1968): “In certain situations it has been held that the mere happening of an accident is evidence of negligence because accidents ordinarily do not happen in the absence of a breach of duty and this in and of itself constitutes enough circumstantial evidence to permit an inference to be drawn by the jury in a given case. 1975This rule is not applicable, however, where, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. 2 That doctrine was described in Short v. Wells, 249 Md. 491, 496 , 240 A. 2d 224 (1968): “In certain situations it has been held that the mere happening of an accident is evidence of negligence because accidents ordinarily do not happen in the absence of a breach of duty and this in and of itself constitutes enough circumstantial evidence to permit an inference to be drawn by the jury in a given case. | 3 | 1975–1976 |
Benedick v. Potts
green
2 sentences1934This court, speaking through Judge McSherry, in Benedick v. Potts, 88 Md. 55 , 40 A. 1067, 1068 , in discussing the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, said: “This phrase, which, literally translated, means that ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ is merely a short way of saying that the circumstances attendant upon an accident are themselves of such a character as to justify a jury in inferring negligence as the cause of that accident; and the doctrine which it embodies, though correct enough in itself, may be said to be applicable to two classes of cases only, viz.; ‘First, when the relation of carrie 1922While in this case the presence of broken or ground glass in the bottle at the time appellant sold .it, and when it could by careful inspection have discovered its dangerous character, was direct proof of a breach of the duty it owed the public to see that its product was not dangerous or unwholesome, and does not necessarily involve the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, still there is nothing in the cases of Benedick v. Potts, 88 Md. 52 ; Strasburger v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85 ; or Streett v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137 , to prevent its application to the facts of this case. | 3 | 1899–1934 |
Potomac Edison Co. v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2001The use of the Latin phrase has been criticized as giving to confusion of thought by Chief Judge Bond, dissenting in Potomac Edison Co. v. Johnson, 160 Md. 33 . 1962J. in Potomac Bdison Co. v. Johnson, 160 Md. 33, at 40-41 , 152 A. 633 . | 2 | 1962–2001 |
Beach v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997If the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does apply, is there any reason, including the views expressed by the Court of Appeals in Dover, why the facts of this case require a different approach than that in Beach v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 18 Md.App. 645 , 308 A.2d 439 (1973)(Where the escalator “stop[ped] and start[ed] up with a jerk”)? 1997If the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does apply, is there any reason, including the views expressed by the Court of Appeals in Dover, why the facts of this case require a different approach than that in Beach v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 18 Md.App. 645 , 308 A.2d 439 (1973)(Where the escalator “stop[ped] and start[ed] up with a jerk”)? | 2 | 1993–1997 |
Bohlen v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
green
2 sentences1996Martin Co., 193 Md. 454, 460 , 67 A.2d 251 (1949): In order to establish this doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, one of the essential elements required is that the thing which is the proximate and natural cause of the injury is wholly in the possession and control of the one party or the other. 1996Martin Co., 193 Md. 454, 460 , 67 A.2d 251 (1949): In order to establish this doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, one of the essential elements required is that the thing which is the proximate and natural cause of the injury is wholly in the possession and control of the one party or the other. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Swann v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences1996This Court reversed as to the elevator company and held, inter alia, that plaintiff has not waived application of the doctrine by "proving too much and too little." Swann, supra, 95 Md.App. at 418 , 620 A.2d 989 . 1996This Court reversed as to the elevator company and held, inter alia, that plaintiff has not waived application of the doctrine by "proving too much and too little." Swann, supra, 95 Md.App. at 418 , 620 A.2d 989 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Smith v. Kelly
green
2 sentences1982Paraphrasing Smith, 246 Md. at 644 , "[t]he [bench] located on appellee’s premises was in constant use for various periods of time by members of the public who had exclusive possession and control over it while it was in use. 1968Smith v. Kelly, 246 Md. 640, 644 , 229 A. 2d 79 (1967) ; Munzert v. American Stores Co., 232 Md. 97, 104 , 192 A. 2d 59 (1963). | 2 | 1968–1982 |
Baltimore American Underwriters of Baltimore American Insurance v. Beckley
green
2 sentences1971Co. v. Beckley, 173 Md. 202 , *499 208, 195 A. 550 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 362 , 96 A. 2d 241 .” The case of Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137 , 106 A. 2d 98 , set out the principle, at page 146, recognized and approved in Blankenship , “* * * that whether plaintiff or defendant shows that the injury complained of might have been caused either by the defendant’s negligence or by the act of another, for which the defendant was not responsible, the doctrine will not apply.” At that stage of a case when it cannot be said that everything relative to it is known, an 1971Co. v. Beckley, 173 Md. 202 , *499 208, 195 A. 550 ; Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 362 , 96 A. 2d 241 .” The case of Coastal Tank Lines v. Carroll, 205 Md. 137 , 106 A. 2d 98 , set out the principle, at page 146, recognized and approved in Blankenship , “* * * that whether plaintiff or defendant shows that the injury complained of might have been caused either by the defendant’s negligence or by the act of another, for which the defendant was not responsible, the doctrine will not apply.” At that stage of a case when it cannot be said that everything relative to it is known, an | 2 | 1939–1971 |
Hagerstown & Frederick Railway Co. v. State
neutral
2 sentences1930Co. v. State, use of Cunningham, 129 Md. 318 , where the passenger had taken a position on the platform, though urged by the conductor to go inside the car, which he declined to do, and “as the car was rounding the curve he fell or was thrown by its swaying motion,” this court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and that the defendant’s prayer for a directed verdict for want of legally sufficient evidence of negligence should have been granted, and for as sound a reason here the defendant’s “B” prayer should also have been granted. 1930Co. v. State, use of Cunningham, 129 Md. 318 , where the passenger had taken a position on the platform, though urged by the conductor to go inside the car, which he declined to do, and "as the car was rounding the curve he fell or was thrown by its swaying motion," this court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and that the defendant's prayer for a directed verdict for want of legally sufficient evidence of negligence should have been granted, and for as sound a reason here the defendant's "B" prayer should also have been granted. | 2 | 1930–1930 |
| Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Port of Seattle green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cannon v. McKen
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Sun Cab Co. v. Walston green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Walston v. Sun Cab Co. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Fields v. Morgan green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| UNSAT. C. & J. FUND BD. v. Bowles green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Joffre v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Lake v. Wyatt Earp Enterprises, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Armour & Co. v. Leasure green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Harris v. Otis Elevator Co. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Hill v. Thompson neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Potts v. Armour & Co. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Bobbitt v. Salamander neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Johnson v. JACKSON green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Fink v. Steele green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Housekeeper green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State, Use of Solomon v. Fishel green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Crockett v. Crothers green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Armstrong v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc. green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Brehm v. Lorenz green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Jones v. Baltimore Transit Co. green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Williams v. McCrory Stores Corp. green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Christ v. Wempe green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Wolfe v. State Ex Rel. Brown green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.