1940•Michigan Law ReviewRequires access

Torts: Evidence: Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine: Application in Pennsylvania

Robert A. Solomon

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The plaintiff sued defendant power company for damages resulting from the destruction of his building by fire. The electricity furnished by defendant, after being reduced by a transformer, passed from its main line through an auxiliary line to a point a few inches from plaintiff's building where it was connected with the wiring system of the building which had been installed, and at the time of the accident was controlled, by plaintiff. Failing to show by direct proof that the transformer was defective and the proximate cause of the loss, plaintiff's claim for negligent destruction of his building was predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendant had not shown that a defect in his own wiring system was not the proximate cause of the destruction of the building. Clark v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 336 Pa. 75, 6 A. (2d) 892 (1939).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The plaintiff sued defendant power company for damages resulting from the destruction of his building by fire. The electricity furnished by defendant, after being reduced by a transformer, passed from its main line through an auxiliary line to a point a few inches from plaintiff's building where it was connected with the wiring system of the building which had been installed, and at the time of the accident was controlled, by plaintiff. Failing to show by direct proof that the transformer was defective and the proximate cause of the loss, plaintiff's claim for negligent destruction of his building was predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendant had not shown that a defect in his own wiring system was not the proximate cause of the destruction of the building. Clark v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 336 Pa. 75, 6 A. (2d) 892 (1939).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The plaintiff sued defendant power company for damages resulting from the destruction of his building by fire. The electricity furnished by defendant, after being reduced by a transformer, passed from its main line through an auxiliary line to a point a few inches from plaintiff's building where it was connected with the wiring system of the building which had been installed, and at the time of the accident was controlled, by plaintiff. Failing to show by direct proof that the transformer was defective and the proximate cause of the loss, plaintiff's claim for negligent destruction of his building was predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendant had not shown that a defect in his own wiring system was not the proximate cause of the destruction of the building. Clark v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 336 Pa. 75, 6 A. (2d) 892 (1939).

Key concepts: Res ipsa loquitur, Circumstantial evidence, Law, Doctrine, Political science, Tort, Liability

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Torts: Evidence: Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine: Application in Pennsylvania — Research Paper | ScholarLens