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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1927–1981 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Folk v. Kilkgreen2 sentences1981With regard to the second and third requirement for the application invoking of the res ipso loquitur doctrine, we note the case of Folk v. Kilk (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 176, 184 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 172 ], where the court cited both the rules of Ybarra and Zentz, supra, and indicated “[i]n malpractice cases arising out of surgical procedures, satisfaction of the second and third elements of Ybarra rule are usually inherent in the situation because the patient is under the exclusive control of the doctors or hospital and in no condition to perform a voluntary action that might contribute to his injury. 1981With regard to the second and third requirement for the application invoking of the res ipso loquitur doctrine, we note the case of Folk v. Kilk (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 176, 184 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 172 ], where the court cited both the rules of Ybarra and Zentz, supra, and indicated “[i]n malpractice cases arising out of surgical procedures, satisfaction of the second and third elements of Ybarra rule are usually inherent in the situation because the patient is under the exclusive control of the doctors or hospital and in no condition to perform a voluntary action that might contribute to his injury. | 1 | 1 |
Slater v. Kehoegreen2 sentences1978They are that “the injury (1) is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) is not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff . .. .” (Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 829 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 790 ].) If the plaintiff establishes the basic facts of the res ipso loquitur presumption and the defendant does not contest the existence of these basic facts, but disputes the existence of the presumed fact — that defendant’s neglig 1978They are that “the injury (1) is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) is not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff . .. .” (Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 829 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 790 ].) If the plaintiff establishes the basic facts of the res ipso loquitur presumption and the defendant does not contest the existence of these basic facts, but disputes the existence of the presumed fact — that defendant’s neglig | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'ngreen2 sentences1955We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient, but we are also of the opinion that the jury, under appropriate instructions, should have been permitted to determine whether each of the conditions necessary to bring into play the rule of res ipso loquitur were present (Roberts v. Bank of America, 97 Cal.App.2d 133, 137 [ 217 P.2d 129 ]). 1955We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient, but we are also of the opinion that the jury, under appropriate instructions, should have been permitted to determine whether each of the conditions necessary to bring into play the rule of res ipso loquitur were present (Roberts v. Bank of America, 97 Cal.App.2d 133, 137 [ 217 P.2d 129 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Newing v. Cheatham
green
1 sentence1981In further support of the trial court’s conclusion that the first condition for the invocation of the res ipso loquitur was satisfied, we find in Newing v. Cheatham, supra, 15 Cal.3d 351, 361 , the Supreme Court’s observation: “As we previously noted, the first condition for invocation of the res ipso doctrine is satisfied if under the facts of the case, common experience indicates that the-accident would not have occurred unless there had been negligence on the part of some one..” (Italics added.) Such rule fits here. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Rimmele v. Northridge Hospital Foundation
green
1 sentence1978It was explained in Rimmele , quoting from the Law Revision Commission’s comment (1970 addition) to Evidence Code section 646, *44 “ ‘[b]ecause of the evidence contesting the presumed conclusion of negligence, the presumptive effect of the doctrine vanishes, and the greatest effect the doctrine can have in the case is to support an inference that the accident resulted from the defendant’s negligence....’” ( Rimmele, supra, 46 Cal.App.3d 123, 130 .) Thus, the jury makes the determination of whether to draw an inference of negligence. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
White v. Spreckels
green
2 sentences1942A similar situation was presented in White v. Spreckels, 10 Cal.App. 287 [ 101 P. 920 ]. 1942A similar situation was presented in White v. Spreckels, 10 Cal.App. 287 [ 101 P. 920 ]. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co.
neutral
2 sentences1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. 1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Ingledue v. Davidson
neutral
2 sentences1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. 1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Godfrey v. Brown
green
2 sentences1942(See Godfrey v. Brown, 220 Cal. 57 [ 29 Pac. (2d) 165 , 93 A. L. 1942(See Godfrey v. Brown, 220 Cal. 57 [ 29 Pac. (2d) 165 , 93 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Brunig v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
neutral
2 sentences1942(Compare Brunig v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 140 Cal.App. 254 [ 35 P.2d 226 ].) It was not until after defendant had introduced evidence tending to show its freedom from negligence with respect to the admitted leak thát plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that defendant was not free from negligence with respect thereto. 1942(Compare Brunig v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 140 Cal.App. 254 [ 35 P.2d 226 ].) It was not until after defendant had introduced evidence tending to show its freedom from negligence with respect to the admitted leak thát plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that defendant was not free from negligence with respect thereto. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
neutral
2 sentences1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. 1942In Hohnemann v. Pacific Gas & Elec *376 trie Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 597 [ 96 P.2d 350 ]; Ingledue v. Davidson, 102 Cal.App. 703 [ 283 P. 840 ], and Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co., 102 Cal.App. 656 [ 283 P. 823 ], the places from which the gas escaped were on the premises of consumers, which places were not under the exclusive control of the parties sought to be charged. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
In Re Silva
green
2 sentences1939(In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 341 ].) It is further contended by appellant that it was not in such control of the premises where the accident occurred as to justify the application of the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. 1939(In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 341 ].) It is further contended by appellant that it was not in such control of the premises where the accident occurred as to justify the application of the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.
green
2 sentences1927The general rule is well *229 settled that the overturning of a vehicle operated by a common carrier raises an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. (4 Cal. Jur., sec. 119, p. 980; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 494 [ 229 Pac. 885 ] ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 [ 59 Am. 1927The general rule is well *229 settled that the overturning of a vehicle operated by a common carrier raises an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. (4 Cal. Jur., sec. 119, p. 980; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 494 [ 229 Pac. 885 ] ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 [ 59 Am. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Zerbe v. United Railroads of S. F.
neutral
2 sentences1927Co., 191 Cal. 295 [ 216 Pac. 595 ]; McKeon v. Lissner, 193 Cal. 309 [ 223 Pac. 965 ].) In Zerbe v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 56 Cal. App. 583 [ 205 Pac. 887 ], where the allegations in the complaint were very similar to those in the complaint in the instant case, it was held that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applied. 1927Co., 191 Cal. 295 [ 216 Pac. 595 ]; McKeon v. Lissner, 193 Cal. 309 [ 223 Pac. 965 ].) In Zerbe v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 56 Cal. App. 583 [ 205 Pac. 887 ], where the allegations in the complaint were very similar to those in the complaint in the instant case, it was held that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applied. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Marovich v. Central California Traction Co.
green
1 sentence1927Co., 191 Cal. 295 [ 216 Pac. 595 ]; McKeon v. Lissner, 193 Cal. 309 [ 223 Pac. 965 ].) In Zerbe v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 56 Cal. App. 583 [ 205 Pac. 887 ], where the allegations in the complaint were very similar to those in the complaint in the instant case, it was held that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applied. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
McKeon v. Lissner
green
1 sentence1927Co., 191 Cal. 295 [ 216 Pac. 595 ]; McKeon v. Lissner, 193 Cal. 309 [ 223 Pac. 965 ].) In Zerbe v. United Railroads of San Francisco, 56 Cal. App. 583 [ 205 Pac. 887 ], where the allegations in the complaint were very similar to those in the complaint in the instant case, it was held that the doctrine of res ipso loquitur applied. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Dowd v. Atlas Taxicab & Auto Service Co.
green
2 sentences1927The general rule is well *229 settled that the overturning of a vehicle operated by a common carrier raises an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. (4 Cal. Jur., sec. 119, p. 980; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 494 [ 229 Pac. 885 ] ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 [ 59 Am. 1927The general rule is well *229 settled that the overturning of a vehicle operated by a common carrier raises an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. (4 Cal. Jur., sec. 119, p. 980; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 494 [ 229 Pac. 885 ] ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 [ 59 Am. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Lawrence v. Green
green
2 sentences1927Rep. 428 , 11 Pac. 750 ]; Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 468 .) This doctrine still applies, even though there be specific as well as general allegations of negligence in the complaint. 1927The general rule is well *229 settled that the overturning of a vehicle operated by a common carrier raises an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. (4 Cal. Jur., sec. 119, p. 980; Dowd v. Atlas T. & A. Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ]; Lawrence v. Pickwick Stages, 68 Cal. App. 494 [ 229 Pac. 885 ] ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 [ 59 Am. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.