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

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

    Jul 10, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 09, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 08, 2020

  • 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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jun 23, 2020

  • 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

    Mar 11, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 13, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 07, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

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

    Jan 29, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 17, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 15, 2020

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

    Jan 09, 2020

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

    Nov 26, 2019

BRACHIUM, INC. VS. WONG

One might be excused for thinking that the futility of Wong appealing to the Brachium board for redress of these grievances is res ipsa loquitur on these facts. Further, a demurrer based on this ground amounts to hiding the pizza dough by throwing it in the air. Even if sustained, it would surely result simply in such a demand being made, and rejected; and then Wong amending his cross- complaint to say so. Nevertheless, statutory requirements are statutory requirements, so let us turn to them.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

CONTRERAS V. LEPORT

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. Id. at p. 801. Examples are when the wrong limb is removed or where there is an injury to a part of the body not within the operative field. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

HOOD V. DIGNITY HEALTH ET AL.

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and this common knowledge exception, it is proper to instruct the jury that it can infer negligence from the happening of the accident itself, if it finds based on common knowledge, the testimony of physicians called as expert witnesses, and all the circumstances, that the injury was more likely than not the result of negligence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2019

SOLAR V. CITY OF SANTA ROSA

The Supreme Court noted that “[b]ecause there is no evidence that the lunch meat came to be on the floor through an employee's negligence, the District is entitled to summary judgment unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit a jury to infer that fact.” It then held that res ipsa loquitur did not apply there because the meat was found on the bottom of plaintiff’s shoe after the fall but there was a myriad of ways in which it could have gotten there.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC

Norton Co., 263 Cal.App.2d 402, 408 [69 Cal.Rptr. 493]: "Appellant does not argue that in a strict liability case the burden of proof resting on him to show that the article was defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer, can be satisfied by invoking the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Indeed, such an attempt would be futile. (4) When a party relies on the rule of strict liability the requirement of showing a defect cannot be satisfied by reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARIA L ANDRADE VS DAVIDS ACADEMY OF BEAUTY

Finally, Plaintiff argues that triable issues remain because res ipsa loquitur applies, and circumstantial evidential is admissible to prove negligence. Such arguments are not responsive to the motion for summary judgment. As discussed above, the only issues raised by the motion are the enforceability and scope of the Waiver, and the Court has found that triable issues remain as to its enforceability. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

JENSON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

To the extent Plaintiff relies on evidence that Plaintiff's injuries differed from other passengers and that the seat belt did not function to restrain her, Plaintiff appears to be relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur "is not applicable in any action predicated upon the theory of strict liability." (Barrett v. Atlas Powder Co. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 560, 565.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JENSON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

To the extent Plaintiff relies on evidence that Plaintiff's injuries differed from other passengers and that the seat belt did not function to restrain her, Plaintiff appears to be relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur "is not applicable in any action predicated upon the theory of strict liability." (Barrett v. Atlas Powder Co. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 560, 565.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RUDOLF LEONE JR. ET AL. VS WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of implied warranty is denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for res ipsa loquitur is granted. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

DONALD F. KING, ET AL. VS AURORA PUMP COMPANY, ET AL.

Section 646 describes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Court fails to see how this argument has any impact on the Court’s analysis. Moving Defendant also filed a demurrer to the complaint. The Court will address both motions filed by Moving Defendant in this one ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

VINDIOLA VS SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Poway Unified School District (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 836-838 ("... we conclude that the res ipsa loquitur presumption does not by itself establish a prima facie case of liability against a public entity under section 835, subdivision (a).") Likewise, assuming the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies, plaintiff has not articulated the evidence, or absence thereof, that meets the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and creates a triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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 gather your results.