Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramsey v. D.P.A. Associatesgreen2 sentences1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho 1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho | 1 | 2 |
Leikach v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Baltimore, Inc.green2 sentences1986Leikach, supra, 261 Md. at 542, 276 A.2d 81 . 1986Leikach, supra, 261 Md. at 542, 276 A.2d 81 . | 1 | 2 |
Joyce A. Robinson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Companygreen1 sentence2011Lines, 473 F.2d 821, 826 (5th Cir.1973) (Freight car door fell on employee, a car-cleaner, when he opened the door to clean the car. ”[T]he teachings of Jesionowski mandate the rejection” of the railroad’s argument "that by opening the boxcar door Dugas was at least in partial control of the instrumentality whence came the injuries, thus defeating the application of the res ipsa doctrine.”); Robinson v. Burlington N. R.R., 131 F.3d 648, 653 (7th Cir.1997) ("In Jesionowski , which remains the *487 governing precedent, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in the context oí FELA cases, federal cour | 1 | 1 |
R. P. Dugas v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Linesgreen1 sentence2011Lines, 473 F.2d 821, 826 (5th Cir.1973) (Freight car door fell on employee, a car-cleaner, when he opened the door to clean the car. ”[T]he teachings of Jesionowski mandate the rejection” of the railroad’s argument "that by opening the boxcar door Dugas was at least in partial control of the instrumentality whence came the injuries, thus defeating the application of the res ipsa doctrine.”); Robinson v. Burlington N. R.R., 131 F.3d 648, 653 (7th Cir.1997) ("In Jesionowski , which remains the *487 governing precedent, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in the context oí FELA cases, federal cour | 1 | 1 |
B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.green2 sentences1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho 1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho | 1 | 1 |
Delahunt v. United Telephone & Telegraph Co.green2 sentences1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of 1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of | 1 | 1 |
Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbedgreen2 sentences1970We find the presumption in the present case analogous to the presumption established under the doctrine of res ipsa, loquitur and we find that the language of Chief Judge Sobeloff, speaking for the Court, in Hickory Transfer Co., Inc. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 263 , 96 A. 2d 241, 245 (1953) to be applicable here: “When the plaintiff invokes this procedure [res ipsa loquitur], thus putting his reliance upon the inference of negligence springing from the event, it has been authoritatively held that it must not appear by his own evidence, or the evidence adduced in his behalf, that causes for which 1970We find the presumption in the present case analogous to the presumption established under the doctrine of res ipsa, loquitur and we find that the language of Chief Judge Sobeloff, speaking for the Court, in Hickory Transfer Co., Inc. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 263 , 96 A. 2d 241, 245 (1953) to be applicable here: “When the plaintiff invokes this procedure [res ipsa loquitur], thus putting his reliance upon the inference of negligence springing from the event, it has been authoritatively held that it must not appear by his own evidence, or the evidence adduced in his behalf, that causes for which | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanes v. State, Use of Lamm
green
2 sentences2009Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. Bowles, 25 Md.App. 558 , 563 n. 2, 334 A.2d 532 (1975) (stating it was appropriate to consider the applicability of res ipsa despite the parties’ failure to raise it because under the Maryland rules of practice the res ipsa doctrine is not a rule of pleading but relates to the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence.) (citing Hanes, 236 Md. at 32 , 202 A.2d 364 ). 2009Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. Bowles, 25 Md.App. 558 , 563 n. 2, 334 A.2d 532 (1975) (stating it was appropriate to consider the applicability of res ipsa despite the parties’ failure to raise it because under the Maryland rules of practice the res ipsa doctrine is not a rule of pleading but relates to the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence.) (citing Hanes, 236 Md. at 32 , 202 A.2d 364 ). | 3 | 1975–2009 |
UNSAT. C. & J. FUND BD. v. Bowles
green
2 sentences2009Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. Bowles, 25 Md.App. 558 , 563 n. 2, 334 A.2d 532 (1975) (stating it was appropriate to consider the applicability of res ipsa despite the parties’ failure to raise it because under the Maryland rules of practice the res ipsa doctrine is not a rule of pleading but relates to the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence.) (citing Hanes, 236 Md. at 32 , 202 A.2d 364 ). 2009Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. Bowles, 25 Md.App. 558 , 563 n. 2, 334 A.2d 532 (1975) (stating it was appropriate to consider the applicability of res ipsa despite the parties’ failure to raise it because under the Maryland rules of practice the res ipsa doctrine is not a rule of pleading but relates to the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence.) (citing Hanes, 236 Md. at 32 , 202 A.2d 364 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dorsey v. General Elevator Co.
neutral
2 sentences1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho 1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Smith v. Kelly
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) (“A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine.”), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho 1993Id. at 644, 229 A.2d 79 ; see also Ramsey, 265 Md. at 326 , 289 A.2d 321 (1972) ("A glass door through which occupants of an apartment house and their guests constantly pass and repass is not under such exclusive control of the landlord as to permit invocation of the res ipsa doctrine."), overruled on other grounds by B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Dorsey v. General Elevator Co., 241 Md. 99, 107 , 215 A.2d 757 (1966) (elevator service company did not have control of elevator because it was manually operated); Burkowske v. Church Ho | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Burkowske v. Church Hospital Corp.
green
2 sentences1993Corp., 50 Md.App. 515, 523 , 439 A.2d 40 (defendant hospital did not have exclusive posses sion and control over a bench that collapsed for unknown reasons), cert, denied, 293 Md. 331 (1982). 1993Corp., 50 Md.App. 515, 523 , 439 A.2d 40 (defendant hospital did not have exclusive posses sion and control over a bench that collapsed for unknown reasons), cert, denied, 293 Md. 331 (1982). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Brown Hotel Company v. Marx
green
2 sentences1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of 1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Kane v. Ten Eyck Co.
green
2 sentences1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of 1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Schanberg v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975In Schanberg v. New York, 296 N.Y.S.2d 646 (1969) *594 it applied where the faucet handle which broke was in an office of the Attorney General of New York. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo
green
2 sentences1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of 1975Co., 64 A. 515, 517 (Pa. 1906): “Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care ” In Kane v. Ten Eyck Co., Inc., supra, Jungjohann v. Hotel Buffalo, supra, and Brown Hotel Company v. Marx, supra, the doctrine of res ipsa was applied when an injury to a guest in a hotel was caused by the breaking of a handle of | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Strasburger v. Vogel
green
2 sentences1970Such was the holding of this court, speaking through Chief Judge McSherry, in Strasburger v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85 , 63 A. 202 . 1970Such was the holding of this court, speaking through Chief Judge McSherry, in Strasburger v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85 , 63 A. 202 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.