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 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1956–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co.green2 sentences2016The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant to be drawn from the factual circumstances surrounding the injury to the plaintiff. * * * ‘To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the condition causing the injury, under the exclusive management and control of the defendant; and (2) that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events it wou 2013Case No. 2011-05823 -5- ENTRY {¶ 12} Plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and that “the negligence of [defendant] is therefore inferred as a matter of law.” The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant to be drawn from the factual circumstances surrounding the injury to the plaintiff. * * * ‘To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the con | 2 | 3 |
Hickey v. Otis Elevator Co.green2 sentences2013Case No. 2011-05823 -5- ENTRY {¶ 12} Plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and that “the negligence of [defendant] is therefore inferred as a matter of law.” The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant to be drawn from the factual circumstances surrounding the injury to the plaintiff. * * * ‘To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the con 2013Case No. 2011-05823 -5- ENTRY {¶ 12} Plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and that “the negligence of [defendant] is therefore inferred as a matter of law.” The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “permits an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant to be drawn from the factual circumstances surrounding the injury to the plaintiff. * * * ‘To warrant application of the rule a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the con | 2 | 2 |
Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnatigreen1 sentence2013The doctrine, however, “‘does not apply where there is direct evidence as to the cause, or where the facts are such that an inference that the accident was due to a cause other than defendant’s negligence could be drawn as reasonably as that it was due to his negligence.’” Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167, 172 (1980), quoting Loomis v. Toledo Rys. & Light Co., 107 Ohio St. 161 , 169-170 (1923). {¶ 13} The only evidence tending to establish the cause of the accident in this case with any certainty is the testimony of Brosius. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shields v. King
green
2 sentences1984Plaintiffs rely upon Shields v. King (1973), 40 Ohio App. 2d 77 [ 69 O.O.2d 57 ], for the proposition that the doctrine is properly applied in a case such as this to establish the negligence of two defendants. 1984Plaintiffs rely upon Shields v. King (1973), 40 Ohio App. 2d 77 [ 69 O.O.2d 57 ], for the proposition that the doctrine is properly applied in a case such as this to establish the negligence of two defendants. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center
green
2 sentences1965Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center (1949), 151 Ohio St. 503 , 87 N. E. 2d 167 ; Huggins v. John Morrell & Co. (1964), 176 Ohio St. 171 , 198 N. E. 2d 448 . 1965Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center (1949), 151 Ohio St. 503 , 87 N. E. 2d 167 ; Huggins v. John Morrell & Co. (1964), 176 Ohio St. 171 , 198 N. E. 2d 448 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, Inc.
green
1 sentence1964In the case of Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, Inc., 148 Ohio St., 119 , wherein plaintiff there stepped into a manhole in a public sidewalk, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus read: “1. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Fink v. New York Central Rd.
green
2 sentences1956Co., 144 Ohio St. 1 , 56 N.E.2d 456 ; Bush, Admr., v. Harvey Transfer Co., 146 Ohio St. 657 , 67 N.E.2d 851 . *Page 465 It may be stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where it is shown that the instrumentality or "thing" which caused the injury or damage complained of is under the control and supervision of defendant and the accident is of such a character as in the ordinary course of events does not happen, if proper management and control is exercised, thereby affording reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation that the accident arose from want of care and perm 1956Co., 144 Ohio St. 1 , 56 N.E.2d 456 ; Bush, Admr., v. Harvey Transfer Co., 146 Ohio St. 657 , 67 N.E.2d 851 . *Page 465 It may be stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where it is shown that the instrumentality or "thing" which caused the injury or damage complained of is under the control and supervision of defendant and the accident is of such a character as in the ordinary course of events does not happen, if proper management and control is exercised, thereby affording reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation that the accident arose from want of care and perm | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.
green
2 sentences1956Co., 144 Ohio St. 1 , 56 N.E.2d 456 ; Bush, Admr., v. Harvey Transfer Co., 146 Ohio St. 657 , 67 N.E.2d 851 . *Page 465 It may be stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where it is shown that the instrumentality or "thing" which caused the injury or damage complained of is under the control and supervision of defendant and the accident is of such a character as in the ordinary course of events does not happen, if proper management and control is exercised, thereby affording reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation that the accident arose from want of care and perm 1956Co., 144 Ohio St. 1 , 56 N.E.2d 456 ; Bush, Admr., v. Harvey Transfer Co., 146 Ohio St. 657 , 67 N.E.2d 851 . *Page 465 It may be stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where it is shown that the instrumentality or "thing" which caused the injury or damage complained of is under the control and supervision of defendant and the accident is of such a character as in the ordinary course of events does not happen, if proper management and control is exercised, thereby affording reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation that the accident arose from want of care and perm | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.