res ipsa loquitur doctrine in Kansas

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957Jur., Negligence, § 303; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 220 [6].) In Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74 , 58 P.2d 77 , we said that where an accident out of which the injury arises is such that direct evidence of negligence is not available, and the circumstances are such the accident would not have occurred except the defendant be at fault, the circumstances are permitted to be shown as making a prima facie case, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

1957Jur., Negligence, § 303; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 220 [6].) In Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74 , 58 P.2d 77 , we said that where an accident out of which the injury arises is such that direct evidence of negligence is not available, and the circumstances are such the accident would not have occurred except the defendant be at fault, the circumstances are permitted to be shown as making a prima facie case, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

2006The Emigh court considered whether the petition stated a cause of action on the theory of negligence and, in the alternative, whether the petition was sufficient to warrant the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 164 Kan. at 733-34 , 191 P.2d 901 .

2006The Emigh court considered whether the petition stated a cause of action on the theory of negligence and, in the alternative, whether the petition was sufficient to warrant the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 164 Kan. at 733-34 , 191 P.2d 901 .

1957FATZER, J., (dissenting): In my judgment the amended petition states a cause of action against all of the defendants under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as applied in Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , and Lamb v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157 , 300 P.2d 387 .

1957FATZER, J., (dissenting): In my judgment the amended petition states a cause of action against all of the defendants under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as applied in Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613 , 258 P.2d 317 , and Lamb v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157 , 300 P.2d 387 .

1990In Tatro , the court stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in a medical malpractice case only where a layman is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation, or from the evidence can draw an inference, that consequences of professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have been followed if due care had been exercised. 212 Kan. at 611 .

1990In Tatro , the court stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in a medical malpractice case only where a layman is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation, or from the evidence can draw an inference, that consequences of *130 professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have been followed if due care had been exercised. 212 Kan. at 611 .

1963The Robinson case discussed most, if not all, of the authorities cited by the parties herein and at page 380 restated the three elements necessary to be alleged to establish a prima facie case in order to warrant the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which are (1) the defendant must have management and control of the instrumentality which, at that time, or later, caused the injury; (2) the circumstances must be such that according to common knowledge and the experience of mankind, the injury would not have occurred without negligence on the part of those having management and co

1963The Robinson case discussed most, if not all, of the authorities cited by the parties herein and at page 380 restated the three elements necessary to be alleged to establish a prima facie case in order to warrant the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which are (1) the defendant must have management and control of the instrumentality which, at that time, or later, caused the injury; (2) the circumstances must be such that according to common knowledge and the experience of mankind, the injury would not have occurred without negligence on the part of those having management and co

1961This court has said the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or arbitrary doctrine to be mechanically applied, but a rule to be cautiously applied, dependent upon the circumstances of the case. ( Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P.2d 1016 ; Pierce v. Schroeder, 171 Kan. 259 , 232 P.2d 460 ; Lamb v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157 , 300 P.2d 387 ; Rhodes v. DeHaan, supra; 38 Am.

1961This court has said the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or arbitrary doctrine to be mechanically applied, but a rule to be cautiously applied, dependent upon the circumstances of the case. ( Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P.2d 1016 ; Pierce v. Schroeder, 171 Kan. 259 , 232 P.2d 460 ; Lamb v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157 , 300 P.2d 387 ; Rhodes v. DeHaan, supra; 38 Am.

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1968(Woosley v. Erickson, 179 Kan. 794 , 298 P. 2d 268 .) Regardless of the ground of liability asserted, before a plaintiff can recover damages from a manufacturer for breach of an implied warranty of fitness, he must show the product was defective.

1968(Woosley v. Erickson, 179 Kan. 794 , 298 P. 2d 268 .) Regardless of the ground of liability asserted, before a plaintiff can recover damages from a manufacturer for breach of an implied warranty of fitness, he must show the product was defective.

1961Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine itself. ( Johnson v. Latimer, 180 Kan. 720 , 308 P.2d 65 .) The doctrine is a rule of evidence and not one of substantive law.

1961Where a plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is incumbent upon him to show fully a situation where it is applicable, otherwise there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in negligence cases by merely asserting the doctrine itself. ( Johnson v. Latimer, 180 Kan. 720 , 308 P.2d 65 .) The doctrine is a rule of evidence and not one of substantive law.

1959Jur. 237 .) “In support of the first sentence of the above quotation, the case of Schmidt v. Stone, 50 N. D. 91 , 194 N. W. 917 , is cited.

1959Jur. 237 .) “In support of the first sentence of the above quotation, the case of Schmidt v. Stone, 50 N. D. 91 , 194 N. W. 917 , is cited.

1958Another attempt to circumvent the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur established by the decisions of this court is made by the plaintiff in quoting from Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 240 , 33 S.Ct. 416 , 57 L.Ed. 815 , as follows: "... res ipsa loquitur means [1] that the facts of the occurrence warrant the inference of negligence, not that they compel such an inference; [2] that they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence where direct evidence of it may be lacking, but it is evidence to be weighed, not necessarily to be accepted as sufficient; [3] that they call for an explanation or reb

1928Held, that, as the presumption which the jury may make cannot serve as the foundation for another presumption, and .as trains frequently catch and throw heavy objects which may injure those in proximity, plaintiff’s showing was not enough to take the case to the jury.” (p. 103.) In the opinion the court dealt with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as if it were necessary to do so, citing the case of San Juan Light Co. v. Requena, 224 U. S. 89 , and Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233 .

1958In such case the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be applied." (p. 583.) This court quoted the foregoing language with approval in Truhlicka v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 162 Kan. 535 , 178 P.2d 252 , and in Emigh v. Andrews, supra. If, on the trial of the instant case the facts alleged in the plaintiff's amended petition were all that was shown, the trier of the fact could only indulge in conjecture as to the cause of plaintiff's injury.

1958In such case the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be applied." (p. 583.) This court quoted the foregoing language with approval in Truhlicka v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 162 Kan. 535 , 178 P.2d 252 , and in Emigh v. Andrews, supra. If, on the trial of the instant case the facts alleged in the plaintiff's amended petition were all that was shown, the trier of the fact could only indulge in conjecture as to the cause of plaintiff's injury.

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1957(Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 650 , 249 Pac. 599 ; Stroud v. Sinclair Refining Co., 144 Kan. 74, 76 , 58 P. 2d 77 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 582 , 134 P. 2d 1102 ; Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469 , 148 P. 2d 1016 ; Sipe v. Helgerson, 159 Kan. 290, 291 , 153 P. 2d 934 ; Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 288 , 219 P. 2d 673 ; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 621 , 258 P. 2d 317 ; Waddle v. Rrodbeck, 176 Kan. 583 , 272 P. 2d 1066 ; Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, p. 1.) “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means ‘the thing sp

1949Plaintiff contends she stated a cause of action under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and directs our attention to cases involving falling objects (Potter v. Rorabaugh, 83 Kan. 712 , 112 Pac. 613 ; Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648 , 249 Pac. 599 ) and to other cases where the doctrine was under consideration (Woods v. Kansas City, K.

1949Plaintiff contends she stated a cause of action under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and directs our attention to cases involving falling objects (Potter v. Rorabaugh, 83 Kan. 712 , 112 Pac. 613 ; Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648 , 249 Pac. 599 ) and to other cases where the doctrine was under consideration (Woods v. Kansas City, K.

2013Perkins, 36 Kan.

1994In Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732 , 822 P.2d 617 (1991), we declined to consider the appellant’s res ipsa loquitur claim because she raised it for the first time at oral argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

1994In Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732 , 822 P.2d 617 (1991), we declined to consider the appellant’s res ipsa loquitur claim because she raised it for the first time at oral argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

1993Hugo v. Manning, 201 Kan. 391 , Syl. ¶ 4, 441 P.2d 145 (1968).

1993Hugo v. Manning, 201 Kan. 391 , Syl. ¶ 4, 441 P.2d 145 (1968).

1988Arnold Associates, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 5 Kan.

1980Roberts Realty Corp. v. City of Great Falls, 160 Mont. 144 , found that the trial court erred by giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

1980A different reason for refusing to allow a res ipsa loquitur instruction was advanced in Republic L. & F. Co. v. Cincinnati, 97 Ohio App. 532, 539 , 127 N.E.2d 767 (1954).

1980A different reason for refusing to allow a res ipsa loquitur instruction was advanced in Republic L. & F. Co. v. Cincinnati, 97 Ohio App. 532, 539 , 127 N.E.2d 767 (1954).

1977In the case of Querry v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 217 Kan. 104 , 535 P.2d 928 , it is stated: “In many of our cases we have pointed out that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits an inference that the known act or instrument which produced the injury was a negligent act or a defective instrument, but it does not permit a further inference as to what act or instrument produced the injury.

1977In the case of Querry v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 217 Kan. 104 , 535 P.2d 928 , it is stated: “In many of our cases we have pointed out that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits an inference that the known act or instrument which produced the injury was a negligent act or a defective instrument, but it does not permit a further inference as to what act or instrument produced the injury.

1977For additional authorities regarding the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases involving fire, see Munger v. Beiderwell, 155 Kan. 187 , 124 P.2d 452 ; Wehkamp v. City of Garden City, 187 Kan. 310 , 356 P.2d 826 ; In re Estate of Morse, 192 Kan. 691 , 391 P.2d 117 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577 , 134 P.2d 1102 ; Kitchen v. Smith, 184 Kan. 188 , 334 P.2d 413 ; Rudy v. Whaley, 188 Kan. 118 , 360 P.2d 863 .

1977For additional authorities regarding the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases involving fire, see Munger v. Beiderwell, 155 Kan. 187 , 124 P.2d 452 ; Wehkamp v. City of Garden City, 187 Kan. 310 , 356 P.2d 826 ; In re Estate of Morse, 192 Kan. 691 , 391 P.2d 117 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577 , 134 P.2d 1102 ; Kitchen v. Smith, 184 Kan. 188 , 334 P.2d 413 ; Rudy v. Whaley, 188 Kan. 118 , 360 P.2d 863 .

1977For additional authorities regarding the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases involving fire, see Munger v. Beiderwell, 155 Kan. 187 , 124 P.2d 452 ; Wehkamp v. City of Garden City, 187 Kan. 310 , 356 P.2d 826 ; In re Estate of Morse, 192 Kan. 691 , 391 P.2d 117 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577 , 134 P.2d 1102 ; Kitchen v. Smith, 184 Kan. 188 , 334 P.2d 413 ; Rudy v. Whaley, 188 Kan. 118 , 360 P.2d 863 .

1977For additional authorities regarding the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in cases involving fire, see Munger v. Beiderwell, 155 Kan. 187 , 124 P.2d 452 ; Wehkamp v. City of Garden City, 187 Kan. 310 , 356 P.2d 826 ; In re Estate of Morse, 192 Kan. 691 , 391 P.2d 117 ; Starks Food Markets, Inc. v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577 , 134 P.2d 1102 ; Kitchen v. Smith, 184 Kan. 188 , 334 P.2d 413 ; Rudy v. Whaley, 188 Kan. 118 , 360 P.2d 863 .