1955•Michigan Law ReviewRequires access

Negligence: Res Ipsa Loquitur: Application to Multiple Defendants in the Alternative

Edward H. Hoenicke

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Appellant, a minor, was injured by the explosion of an "aerial bomb" which he found on a county fair ground. Two of the defendants admitted having brought aerial bombs to the fair but each entered evidence which if believed would show that he had not left the article which injured the appellant. These two defendants were completely independent of each other and it was admitted that both could not be responsible for the injury to the child. The lower court instructed the jury that if they could not determine which of the two defendants was actionably negligent, they were compelled to exonerate both. Held, reversed. An instruction based on res ipsa loquitur should have been given and if the jury was unable to determine which of two defendants was guilty of actionable negligence, both should have been held liable. Litzmann v. Humboldt County, (Cal. App. 1954) 273 P. (2d) 82.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Appellant, a minor, was injured by the explosion of an "aerial bomb" which he found on a county fair ground. Two of the defendants admitted having brought aerial bombs to the fair but each entered evidence which if believed would show that he had not left the article which injured the appellant. These two defendants were completely independent of each other and it was admitted that both could not be responsible for the injury to the child. The lower court instructed the jury that if they could not determine which of the two defendants was actionably negligent, they were compelled to exonerate both. Held, reversed. An instruction based on res ipsa loquitur should have been given and if the jury was unable to determine which of two defendants was guilty of actionable negligence, both should have been held liable. Litzmann v. Humboldt County, (Cal. App. 1954) 273 P. (2d) 82.

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

Appellant, a minor, was injured by the explosion of an "aerial bomb" which he found on a county fair ground. Two of the defendants admitted having brought aerial bombs to the fair but each entered evidence which if believed would show that he had not left the article which injured the appellant. These two defendants were completely independent of each other and it was admitted that both could not be responsible for the injury to the child. The lower court instructed the jury that if they could not determine which of the two defendants was actionably negligent, they were compelled to exonerate both. Held, reversed. An instruction based on res ipsa loquitur should have been given and if the jury was unable to determine which of two defendants was guilty of actionable negligence, both should have been held liable. Litzmann v. Humboldt County, (Cal. App. 1954) 273 P. (2d) 82.

Key concepts: Res ipsa loquitur, Contributory negligence, Circumstantial evidence, Law, Economics, Political science, Law and economics, Tort

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Negligence: Res Ipsa Loquitur: Application to Multiple Defendants in the Alternative — Research Paper | ScholarLens