stating the doctrine “will not be applied unless the facts and circumstances indicate that the negligence of the defendant ... is the most plausible explanation of the accident.”
How later courts described this case
- stating the doctrine “will not be applied unless the facts and circumstances indicate that the negligence of the defendant ... is the most plausible explanation of the accident.”
- res ipsa loquitur held inapplicable where whole cartons fell from display
- italics supplied in Bourdeaux
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Sims v. Gibson's of Denham Springs, Inc., 1967 La. App. LEXIS 4784 (1967)
Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, supra. The rule is inapplicable, however, when the inference that the accident resulted from a cause other than defendant’s negligence can be drawn as reasonably as the inference that the mishap did occur because of defendant’s fault.
The opinion
HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion states that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. I agree with this statement.
In the instant case, I am of the view that National should have made a showing that its aisles and premises were regularly policed and inspected for displaced merchandise, and that it therefore used all due diligence to protect its customers from injury. When it failed to show this after plaintiff had adduced the facts as to how she was injured, it should be held liable.
I respectfully dissent.