res ipsa loquitur is applicable doctrine in West Virginia

1997We stated a three-part test for the invoking of res ipsa loquitur, containing the element of "exclusive control," in Syllabus Point 2 of Royal Furniture Co. v. City of Morgantown, 164 W.Va. 400 , 263 S.E.2d 878 (1980), and it is this Royal Furniture test that we have ordinarily referred to in res ipsa cases subsequent to Royal Furniture [9] : Before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, three essentials must exist: (1) the instrumentality which causes the injury must be under the exclusive control and management of the defendant; (2) the plaintiff must be without fault; and, (3) the

1997We stated a three-part test for the invoking of res ipsa loquitur, containing the element of "exclusive control," in Syllabus Point 2 of Royal Furniture Co. v. City of Morgantown, 164 W.Va. 400 , 263 S.E.2d 878 (1980), and it is this Royal Furniture test that we have ordinarily referred to in res ipsa cases subsequent to Royal Furniture [9] : Before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, three essentials must exist: (1) the instrumentality which causes the injury must be under the exclusive control and management of the defendant; (2) the plaintiff must be without fault; and, (3) the

1995We also specifically recognized the following in syllabus point two of Baxter : ““‘The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked if the defendant does not have control or management of the premises or operations where the accident occurred; or where there is divided responsibility, and the unexplained accident may have been the result of causes over which defendant had no control.” Point 1, Syllabus, Laurent v. United Fuel Gas Co., 101 W.Va. 499 , 133 S.E. 116 [(1926)],’ Syllabus point 3, Walton v. Given, 158 W.Va. 897 , 215 S.E.2d 647 (1975).” Syllabus Point 2, Bronz v. St.

1995We also specifically recognized the following in syllabus point two of Baxter : ““‘The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked if the defendant does not have control or management of the premises or operations where the accident occurred; or where there is divided responsibility, and the unexplained accident may have been the result of causes over which defendant had no control.” Point 1, Syllabus, Laurent v. United Fuel Gas Co., 101 W.Va. 499 , 133 S.E. 116 [(1926)],’ Syllabus point 3, Walton v. Given, 158 W.Va. 897 , 215 S.E.2d 647 (1975).” Syllabus Point 2, Bronz v. St.

1997See also syl. pt. 4, Cunningham v. West Virginia-American Water Co., 193 W.Va. 450 , 457 S.E.2d 127 (1995); syl. pt. 1, Baxter v. Cramco, Inc., 188 W.Va. 515 , 425 S.E.2d 191 (1992); 13B M.J.

1997See also syl. pt. 4, Cunningham v. West Virginia-American Water Co., 193 W.Va. 450 , 457 S.E.2d 127 (1995); syl. pt. 1, Baxter v. Cramco, Inc., 188 W.Va. 515 , 425 S.E.2d 191 (1992); 13B M.J.

1995We also specifically recognized the following in syllabus point two of Baxter : ““‘The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked if the defendant does not have control or management of the premises or operations where the accident occurred; or where there is divided responsibility, and the unexplained accident may have been the result of causes over which defendant had no control.” Point 1, Syllabus, Laurent v. United Fuel Gas Co., 101 W.Va. 499 , 133 S.E. 116 [(1926)],’ Syllabus point 3, Walton v. Given, 158 W.Va. 897 , 215 S.E.2d 647 (1975).” Syllabus Point 2, Bronz v. St.

1995We also specifically recognized the following in syllabus point two of Baxter : ““‘The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked if the defendant does not have control or management of the premises or operations where the accident occurred; or where there is divided responsibility, and the unexplained accident may have been the result of causes over which defendant had no control.” Point 1, Syllabus, Laurent v. United Fuel Gas Co., 101 W.Va. 499 , 133 S.E. 116 [(1926)],’ Syllabus point 3, Walton v. Given, 158 W.Va. 897 , 215 S.E.2d 647 (1975).” Syllabus Point 2, Bronz v. St.

1991(Hillas v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 120 N.J.Super. 105 , 293 A.2d 419 [(1972)].) In fact, it is well settled in this state that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to multiple defendants.

1991(Hillas v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 120 N.J.Super. 105 , 293 A.2d 419 [(1972)].) In fact, it is well settled in this state that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to multiple defendants.

1991(Worden v. Union Gas System, [ 182 Kan. 686 , 324 P.2d 501 (1958)]; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 [(1953)].) According to Prosser, Torts, 4th Ed., § 39, p. 211, in order to establish exclusive control it is not necessary for the plaintiff to eliminate all other possible causes of the accident.

1991(Worden v. Union Gas System, [ 182 Kan. 686 , 324 P.2d 501 (1958)]; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 [(1953)].) According to Prosser, Torts, 4th Ed., § 39, p. 211, in order to establish exclusive control it is not necessary for the plaintiff to eliminate all other possible causes of the accident.

1991(Worden v. Union Gas System, [ 182 Kan. 686 , 324 P.2d 501 (1958)]; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 [(1953)].) According to Prosser, Torts, 4th Ed., § 39, p. 211, in order to establish exclusive control it is not necessary for the plaintiff to eliminate all other possible causes of the accident.

1991(Worden v. Union Gas System, [ 182 Kan. 686 , 324 P.2d 501 (1958)]; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , 38 A.L.R.2d 887 [(1953)].) According to Prosser, Torts, 4th Ed., § 39, p. 211, in order to establish exclusive control it is not necessary for the plaintiff to eliminate all other possible causes of the accident.