res ipsa loquitur doctrine in Iowa

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 , 11–14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5, 11-14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

2009Wiles, 210 N.W.2d at 627 .

2009Wiles, 210 N.W.2d at 627 .

2025See Brewster v. United States, 542 N.W.2d 524 , 528–29 (Iowa 1996) (stating that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply if the plaintiff fails to connect the defendant with the negligent event that caused the injury).

2009The issue for the trial court is whether there is sufficient competent evidence of the existence of the foundational facts to generate a jury question. “ ‘Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.’ ” Brewster, 542 N.W.2d at 529 (quoting Mastland, 498 N.W2d at 684).

2008See Carver v. El-Sabawi, 121 Nev. 11 , 107 P.3d 1283, 1285-86 (2005) (citing cases taking each position).

2008See Carver v. El-Sabawi, 121 Nev. 11 , 107 P.3d 1283, 1285-86 (2005) (citing cases taking each position).

1977Light Co., (1928), 207 Iowa 1149, 1155 , 222 N.W. 560, 562 . “<* * * [T]he mere occurrence of a' fire with resultant injuries does not permit an inference of negligence ’, Dodge v. McFall (1951), 242 Iowa 12, 15 , 45 N.W.2d 501, 503 , but ‘where the circumstances under which the fire originated and spread are such as to show that defendant or his servants were negligent in connection therewith’, the doctrine may apply. 65A C.J.S.

1977Light Co., (1928), 207 Iowa 1149, 1155 , 222 N.W. 560, 562 . “<* * * [T]he mere occurrence of a' fire with resultant injuries does not permit an inference of negligence ’, Dodge v. McFall (1951), 242 Iowa 12, 15 , 45 N.W.2d 501, 503 , but ‘where the circumstances under which the fire originated and spread are such as to show that defendant or his servants were negligent in connection therewith’, the doctrine may apply. 65A C.J.S.

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015See Tedrow v. Des Moines Hous., Corp., 249 Iowa 766 , 87 N.W.2d 463, 465 (Iowa 1958) (stating “[t]he mere happening of a fire with the resultant injuries raises no presumption of negligence”). “[F]or the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, plaintiff must establish the cause of the fire.” Wilson v. Paul, 176 N.W.2d 807, 809 (Iowa 1970).

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

1944See Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352, 368 , 291 N. W. 425, 433 , where the court says: “The necessity of complete and exclusive control of the instrumentality, for the application of the res ipsa loquitur rule, has been repeatedly referred, to by the court.” (Citing cases.) *169 See, also, Pearson v. Butts, 224 Iowa 376 , 276 N. W. 65 .

1944See Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352, 368 , 291 N. W. 425, 433 , where the court says: “The necessity of complete and exclusive control of the instrumentality, for the application of the res ipsa loquitur rule, has been repeatedly referred, to by the court.” (Citing cases.) *169 See, also, Pearson v. Butts, 224 Iowa 376 , 276 N. W. 65 .

1938This court, in the very recent case of Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , at page 1230, 257 N. W. 190 , at page 192, speaking through Justice Stevens, said: “At the outset, we are confronted with the question as to whether the res ipsa loquitur rule may properly be applied to the facts of this case.

1938This court, in the very recent case of Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , at page 1230, 257 N. W. 190 , at page 192, speaking through Justice Stevens, said: “At the outset, we are confronted with the question as to whether the res ipsa loquitur rule may properly be applied to the facts of this case.

1979Of course, rarity of the occurrence is not a sufficient predicate for application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, Perin, 210 N.W.2d at 615 .

1979Of course, rarity of the occurrence is not a sufficient predicate for application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, Perin, 210 N.W.2d at 615 .

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 , 11–14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5, 11-14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

1996Reilly v. Straub, 282 N.W.2d 688, 693-94 (Iowa 1979).

1996Id. at 694 .

1992Welte, 482 N.W.2d at 440 ; Tappe, 477 N.W.2d at 399 .

1992We recently examined in detail the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as it applies to medical malpractice cases in Welte, 482 N.W.2d at 439-42 .

1977Also, as articulated in Palleson v. Jewell Cooperative Elevator, 219 N.W.2d 8, 13 (Iowa 1974): “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence, not of substantive tort law.

1974The doctrine has been defined in a long line of cases, recently in Wiles v. Myerly, 210 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa 1973) and Palleson v. Jewell Cooperative Elevator, 219 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 1974).

2025Negligence manifestly cannot be predicated of any act until you know what the act is.” Tamco Pork II, LLC v. Heartland Co-op, 876 N.W.2d 226, 235 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted).

2023See, e.g., State v. Warren, 955 N.W.2d 848 , 867 (Iowa 2021) (“We generally will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief in an appeal, let alone in an application for further review.” (quoting State v. Schackford, 952 N.W.2d 141 , 147–48 (Iowa 2020))); Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 , 711–12 (Iowa 2016) (declining to address issue raised for first time on further review); Richardson v. Commodore, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 693 , 696 n.2 (Iowa 1999) (“Richardson argued for the first time in his application for further review that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ap

2023See, e.g., Brauner v. Peterson, 557 P.2d 359, 361 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976) (“With regard to res ipsa loquitur, the presence of an animal at large on the highway is not sufficient to warrant application of the rule, [i].e., the event must be of a kind not ordinarily occurring in the absence of someone’s negligence.

2016Co., 686 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Iowa 2004).

2016Co., 686 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Iowa 2004).

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 , 11–14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

2016See, e.g., DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5, 11-14 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing multiple jury instruction claims, including refusal to give a requested pretext instruction, for errors at law); Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a general negligence instruction for errors at law); Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction for errors at law); Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins.

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015Co., 59 F.Supp. 911, 919 (N.D.Iowa 1945) (finding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable where cause and origin of fire- was undetermined), superseded by statute, Comparative Fault Act, Iowa Code chapter 668; Raid Quarries Corp., 249 N.W.2d at 645 (“ ‘Plaintiff ,:. requires evidence of the precise cause of the blaze.’ ”); Wilson, 176 N.W.2d at 809 (requiring plaintiff to establish the cause of the fire in order for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply); Tedrow, 87 N.W.2d at 466-67 (finding plaintiff did not establish cause of fire and res ipsa loquitur doctrine was inapplicab

2015See Tedrow v. Des Moines Hous., Corp., 249 Iowa 766 , 87 N.W.2d 463, 465 (Iowa 1958) (stating “[t]he mere happening of a fire with the resultant injuries raises no presumption of negligence”). “[F]or the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, plaintiff must establish the cause of the fire.” Wilson v. Paul, 176 N.W.2d 807, 809 (Iowa 1970).

2015See Tedrow v. Des Moines Hous., Corp., 249 Iowa 766 , 87 N.W.2d 463, 465 (Iowa 1958) (stating “[t]he mere happening of a fire with the resultant injuries raises no presumption of negligence”). “[F]or the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, plaintiff must establish the cause of the fire.” Wilson v. Paul, 176 N.W.2d 807, 809 (Iowa 1970).