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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Poway Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2021Under this doctrine, “certain kinds of accidents are so likely to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence that one may fairly say ‘the thing speaks for itself.’ ” (Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825 .) “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as ‘a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.’ [Citation.] The presumption arises when the evidence satisfies three conditions: ‘ “(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the 3 absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency o 2003(See Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 ] [plaintiff awoke with his arm *1672 paralyzed after appendectomy during which he was unconscious due to anesthesia]; Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 159 Eng.Rep. 299, 300 [barrel of flour rolled out of window in defendant’s warehouse onto plaintiff], as cited in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825-826 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 843 P.2d 624 ].) “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as ‘a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.’ (Evid. | 3 | 4 |
Ybarra v. Spangardgreen2 sentences2003(See Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 ] [plaintiff awoke with his arm *1672 paralyzed after appendectomy during which he was unconscious due to anesthesia]; Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 159 Eng.Rep. 299, 300 [barrel of flour rolled out of window in defendant’s warehouse onto plaintiff], as cited in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825-826 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 843 P.2d 624 ].) “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as ‘a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.’ (Evid. 2003(See Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [ 154 P.2d 687 ] [plaintiff awoke with his arm *1672 paralyzed after appendectomy during which he was unconscious due to anesthesia]; Byrne v. Boadle (1863) 159 Eng.Rep. 299, 300 [barrel of flour rolled out of window in defendant’s warehouse onto plaintiff], as cited in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825-826 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 843 P.2d 624 ].) “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as ‘a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.’ (Evid. | 2 | 2 |
Cordova v. Fordgreen1 sentence2021Further, “[g]enerally, . . . the mere occurrence of a collision between two cars does not of itself present a circumstance for applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, though a collision may occur under circumstances warranting application of the doctrine. [Citations.] Circumstances where application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine may be justified include rear-end collision cases where the rear car has collided with a stopped, stationary, or parked vehicle.” (Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207, 212-213 , italics omitted; accord Cordova v. Ford (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 180, 185 , see a | 1 | 1 |
Gagosian v. Burdick's Television & Appliancesgreen1 sentence2021Further, “[g]enerally, . . . the mere occurrence of a collision between two cars does not of itself present a circumstance for applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, though a collision may occur under circumstances warranting application of the doctrine. [Citations.] Circumstances where application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine may be justified include rear-end collision cases where the rear car has collided with a stopped, stationary, or parked vehicle.” (Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207, 212-213 , italics omitted; accord Cordova v. Ford (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 180, 185 , see a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pittman v. Boiven
green
1 sentence2021Further, “[g]enerally, . . . the mere occurrence of a collision between two cars does not of itself present a circumstance for applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, though a collision may occur under circumstances warranting application of the doctrine. [Citations.] Circumstances where application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine may be justified include rear-end collision cases where the rear car has collided with a stopped, stationary, or parked vehicle.” (Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207, 212-213 , italics omitted; accord Cordova v. Ford (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 180, 185 , see a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.