res ipsa loquitur is applicable doctrine in Kansas

1958It is well settled in this state that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable as against multiple defendants. ( Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, supra; Woods v. Kansas City, K.V. & W.

1958It is well settled in this state that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable as against multiple defendants. ( Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, supra; Woods v. Kansas City, K.V. & W.

1975Super. 105, 293 A. 2d 419 .) In fact, it is well settled in this state that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to multiple defendants.

1961The distinction between malpractice cases in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and those in which it is not was given in Sanders et ux. v. Smith, 200 Miss. 551 , 27 So. 2d 889 , as follows: “. . . the test, generally, is not that the result of the operation was unusual and unexpected, or even fatal, alone and by itself, because, without an abnormal and rare end to operation, there would not exist an occasion for an action in damages from it.

1961The distinction between malpractice cases in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and those in which it is not was given in Sanders et ux. v. Smith, 200 Miss. 551 , 27 So. 2d 889 , as follows: “. . . the test, generally, is not that the result of the operation was unusual and unexpected, or even fatal, alone and by itself, because, without an abnormal and rare end to operation, there would not exist an occasion for an action in damages from it.

1957Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine here involved, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine is applicable. *725 Plaintiff relies on the "pop bottle" cases ( Bradley v. Conway Springs Bottling Co., 154 Kan. 282 , 118 P.2d 601 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 ; Morrison v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 175 Kan. 212 , 263 P.2d 217 ) to sustain his contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicab

1957Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine here involved, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine is applicable. *725 Plaintiff relies on the "pop bottle" cases ( Bradley v. Conway Springs Bottling Co., 154 Kan. 282 , 118 P.2d 601 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 ; Morrison v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 175 Kan. 212 , 263 P.2d 217 ) to sustain his contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicab

1957Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine here involved, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine is applicable. *725 Plaintiff relies on the "pop bottle" cases ( Bradley v. Conway Springs Bottling Co., 154 Kan. 282 , 118 P.2d 601 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 ; Morrison v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 175 Kan. 212 , 263 P.2d 217 ) to sustain his contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicab

1957Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine here involved, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine is applicable. *725 Plaintiff relies on the "pop bottle" cases ( Bradley v. Conway Springs Bottling Co., 154 Kan. 282 , 118 P.2d 601 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 ; Morrison v. Kansas City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 175 Kan. 212 , 263 P.2d 217 ) to sustain his contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicab

1949(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648 , 249 Pac. 599 .) Nothing of that kind was done.

1949(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648 , 249 Pac. 599 .) Nothing of that kind was done.

1936Fruits, 138 Cal. App. 777 , 28 P. 2d 1077 , and cases inhere cited.) In a few cases it is stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.

1936(Costello v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of La., Inc., 18 La.

1926Co., 220 Mo. 435 , it was held that in an action for damages in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, an instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the negligence of defendant was properly refused, for the reason “it destroys every vestige of the doctrine of presumptive negligence,” and this holding has been followed in Bloom v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 251 S. W. 411 (Mo.), and in Carlson v. Kansas City, Clay County & St.