What is res ipsa loquitor?

Useful Rulings on Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor

Recent Rulings on Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor

JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL

In Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed June 18, 2018, they allege four causes of action sounding in: (1) Medical Negligence; (2) Res Ipsa Loquitur Negligence (against Dr. Suk; Retina Institute of California; and SGA); (3) Lack of Informed Consent (against Dr. Suk; Retina Institute of California; and SGA); and (4) Loss of Consortium. PRESENTATION: Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel further requests for production on October 13, 2020, Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHU-HUI TING VS FASHION PARK VILLAS ? OWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

With respect to whether there is a reasonable possibility defendants will obtain a judgment in this action, the Court notes that, on September 9, 2020, the Court sustained without leave to amend defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action for Negligence Per Se and third cause of action for Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHU-HUI TING VS FASHION PARK VILLAS ? OWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

With respect to the third cause of action for Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur, “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule concerning the presentation of evidence; it is not an independent ground of liability.” (Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 73, 78.) Like negligence per se, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule, not a cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT MACHADO VS. MATTHEW J. WHITEHEAD III

Fakheri, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would come into play. To invoke the doctrine, a plaintiff must show: (1) the incident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the incident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the incident was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. See Scott (2010) 185 CA4th 1535, 1540; Howe (2010) 189 CA4th 1155, 1161.

  • Hearing

PERRY TESSEL ET AL VS PEDRAM FAKHERI ET AL

Fakheri, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would come into play. To invoke the doctrine, a plaintiff must show: (1) the incident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the incident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the incident was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. See Scott (2010) 185 CA4th 1535, 1540; Howe (2010) 189 CA4th 1155, 1161.

  • Hearing

MARK ELLENSOHN VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

The City relies on Government Code section 830.5, which provides, in pertinent part: “(a) Except where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the happening of the accident which results in the injury is not in and of itself evidence that public property was in a dangerous condition.”

  • Hearing

JULIAN BARAZI VS EMAD AMMAR, DDS

Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Res Ipsa Loquitur Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for res ipsa loquitur on grounds there is no separate cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. It is true res ipsa loquitur is not a separate tort cause of action and Plaintiff cannot obtain damages for both negligence and res ipsa loquitur arising out of the same accident. Rather, res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine whereby negligence may be presumed if the evidentiary requirements are met.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FARRINGTON V. ROHLEN

“Whether the case falls into the category of the commonplace or the unusual must necessarily turn upon a conglomerate of medical facts; only if the facts clearly show that the procedure is so unusual and complex that the jury could not rest their understanding of it upon their common knowledge should the court refuse a tendered res ipsa loquitur instruction, based on common knowledge.” (Ibid.) For example, the Supreme Court in Bardesono cited Bauer v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAM JAFFE, ET AL VS. G&C CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, L'NC., ET AL

“In order to invoke res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff has the burden to establish three conditions: ‘(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.”

  • Hearing

MOSSY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC VS SAUERS CONSTRUCTION INC [E-FILE]

Pursuant to CCP § 411.35 [Malpractice actions; architects, engineers, or surveyors; certificate of review and consultation; res ipsa loquitur exception; failure to file]: (a) In every action, including a cross-complaint for damages or indemnity, arising out of the professional negligence of a person holding a valid architect's certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or of a person holding a valid registration as a professional

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL

Thus, SGA has not met its prima facie burden to show a triable issue exists as to the Res Ipsa Loquitur cause of action. Retina Defendants' argument for the res ipsa loquitur claim also relies on the Declaration of Smith, as discussed above. The Court finds the same deficiencies in the expert declaration applies here and thus, Retina Defendants have not met their prima facie burden to show a triable issue exists as to the Res Ipsa Loquitur cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RICHARD SEGURA, ET AL. VS MATTHEW D. DUNN, M.D., ET AL.

“The 'common knowledge' exception is principally limited to situations in which the plaintiff can invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, i.e., when a layperson 'is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation that the consequences of professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised. The classic example, of course, is the X-ray revealing a scalpel left in the patient's body following surgery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RICHARD SEGURA, ET AL. VS MATTHEW D. DUNN, M.D., ET AL.

“The 'common knowledge' exception is principally limited to situations in which the plaintiff can invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, i.e., when a layperson 'is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation that the consequences of professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised. The classic example, of course, is the X-ray revealing a scalpel left in the patient's body following surgery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MICHELE VEDON VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Moving Defendants further argue that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for res ipsa loquitur. A demurrer cannot be sustained for a failure allege sufficient facts to support a claim for res ipsa loquitur because res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine affecting the burden of producing evidence, not a cause of action. (See Cal. Evid. Code, § 646.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ALEKSANDR KRAVETS VS IRINA GANELIS M D

As for Plaintiff’s argument that he has proven res ipsa loquitur, the court disagrees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

THE ESTATE OF LEWIS NYARECHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence res ipsa loquitur; (3) negligent training; (4) battery; and (5) declaratory relief. Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication on the grounds that: (1) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act; and (2) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE ESTATE OF LEWIS NYARECHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence res ipsa loquitur; (3) negligent training; (4) battery; and (5) declaratory relief. Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication on the grounds that: (1) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act; and (2) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SYDNEY BERARD-MOORE V. DIGNITY HEALTH, ET AL.

If the defendant carries the initial burden, the plaintiff may carry his or her opposing burden by either “(1) producing direct evidence of each defendant’s negligence and causation, or (2) producing evidence of the three elements of res ipsa loquitur.” (Ibid.) But Dignity did not carry its initial burden, and Plaintiff does not attempt to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitur in opposition.

  • Hearing

THE ESTATE OF LEWIS NYARECHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence res ipsa loquitur; (3) negligent training; (4) battery; and (5) declaratory relief. Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses without objections to its first set of judicial form interrogatories and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,250.00 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DINA B CHERNICK ET AL VS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

In a supplemental brief, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should have applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the negligence claim, and that doing so would have necessitated denial of the MSA. This is not a new or different fact, law, or circumstance, and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to reconsider the Order based on this argument. As far as actual new or different facts or circumstances, Plaintiffs submit that new evidence has surfaced which merits reconsideration of the Order.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SERGIO ALVAREZ VS ROMERO MOTORS CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint alleges premises liability, negligence, negligence per se, and res ipsa loquitur arising from a metal bar falling on Plaintiff’s head on October 28, 2014. On December 18, 2019, Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena issued to non-party Clara Alvarez pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

BINGHAM V. TARASUK, ET AL.

As to Plaintiff’s argument regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Plaintiff is apparently confused. Plaintiff cites to Ybarra v.

  • Hearing

SERGIO ALVAREZ VS ROMERO MOTORS CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint alleges premises liability, negligence, negligence per se, and res ipsa loquitur arising from a metal bar falling on Plaintiff’s head on October 28, 2014. On November 1, 2019, Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena issued to non-party Clara Alvarez. Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.