"And even where there is some evidence that plaintiff's failure to exercise care in the use of defendant's equipment was a contributing cause producing the injury, the doctrine is not excluded as a matter of law; rather the case is to be submitted to the jury with proper instructions permitting the jury to draw the inference of defendant's negligence if it finds that plaintiff by his own conduct was not responsible for causing his injury."
How later courts described this case
- "And even where there is some evidence that plaintiff's failure to exercise care in the use of defendant's equipment was a contributing cause producing the injury, the doctrine is not excluded as a matter of law; rather the case is to be submitted to the jury with proper instructions permitting the jury to draw the inference of defendant's negligence if it finds that plaintiff by his own conduct was not responsible for causing his injury."
- “The reasonable man represents the general level of community intelligence and perception and the jury, being a cross section of the community, should best be able to tell what that general level is.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
R.OSSMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
The defendant placed a pad under the end of the ramp that rested upon the recently painted floor of the porch. The ramp definitely sloped downward from the tail end of the truck to this pad. As the men stepped from the body of the truck onto the ramp and down the latter they inevitably gave the ramp an impulse or spur to skid upon the pad and away from the tailgate. The ramp was not fastened to the truck so as to prevent it from moving therefrom. The plaintiff’s son directed the attention of the defendant’s driver to this situation. The latter could readily warrant the jury in inferring that the *272 defendant was negligent. The doctrine of res ipsa loqnitnr does nothing more than authorize an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence in some cases. Dunning v. Northwestern Electric Company, 186 Or 379 , 199 P2d 648 . The doctrine could do nothing more than the reason of the jury apparently did from the facts just stated. It was unnecessary to employ that rule in this case, hut its employment can not he deemed prejudicial to the defendant.
I concur.
McAllister, C.J., joins in this opinion.