res ipsa loquitor instruction in Pennsylvania

1991There is no merit in this argument. *494 While it is true that a res ipsa loquitor instruction is not warranted in the face of clear and indubitable proof of negligence, it is also true that a res ipsa loquitor charge is appropriate where the facts of a case lie somewhere in a grey zone “between the case in which the plaintiff brings in no evidence of specific acts of negligence, and therefore must rely on the res ipsa loquitur inference alone, and the case in which the defendant’s negligence ‘can be clearly and indubitably ascertained’ from the plaintiff’s evidence, Farley v. Philadelphia Tra

1991There is no merit in this argument. *494 While it is true that a res ipsa loquitor instruction is not warranted in the face of clear and indubitable proof of negligence, it is also true that a res ipsa loquitor charge is appropriate where the facts of a case lie somewhere in a grey zone “between the case in which the plaintiff brings in no evidence of specific acts of negligence, and therefore must rely on the res ipsa loquitur inference alone, and the case in which the defendant’s negligence ‘can be clearly and indubitably ascertained’ from the plaintiff’s evidence, Farley v. Philadelphia Tra

1988Our Supreme Court, in Gilbert v. Korvette, 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A.2d 94 (1974), adopted the res ipsa loquitor doctrine as provided in Section 328 D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

1988Our Supreme Court, in Gilbert v. Korvette, 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A.2d 94 (1974), adopted the res ipsa loquitor doctrine as provided in Section 328 D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

2019Miller, 152 A.3d 405 (unreported decision at 1) (footnotes omitted). -2- Miller filed a notice of appeal to the Commonwealth Court arguing that the trial court erred in “(1) concluding that he had failed to present sufficient evidence of the breach and causation elements of negligence; (2) requiring expert testimony to prove his claim for negligence; and (3) failing to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.” Id. at 2.

2018Id Further, "[wjith all but the most self-evident medical malpractice actions there is also the added requirement that plaintiff must provide a medical expert who will testify as to the elements of duty, breach, and causation." Id. at 1070- 71. 11 2014-31546-0088 Opinion, Page 12 Here, Plaintiffs provided no such expert but claim that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies in this case which would allow a jury to infer negligence from the circumstances surrounding the injury.

2016Herring v. City of Jeannette, 47 A.3d 202 , 204 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

1991Smith v. City of Chester, 357 Pa.Super. 24, 29-30 , 515 A.2d 303, 306 (1986), appeal dismissed, 517 Pa. 362 , 537 A.2d 812 (1988).

1991Smith v. City of Chester, 357 Pa.Super. 24, 29-30 , 515 A.2d 303, 306 (1986), appeal dismissed, 517 Pa. 362 , 537 A.2d 812 (1988).

1923“In order to maintain the verdict the plaintiffs are bound to point to evidence which wouid justify men of ordinary reason and fairness in saying that the defendant’s driver, if he had exercised ordinary care, could have avoided this accident”: Eastburn v. United States Express Co., 225 Pa. 33, 38, 39 ; Flanigan v. McLean, supra. There is nothing in the evidence to show how plaintiff came into this part of the street.

1923To so hold would establish the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor as to such accidents: Flanigan v. McLean, supra. There must be other evidence leading up to the fact of accident on which culpableness may be based.