concluding that there was nothing so unreasonable or abnormal in the plaintiff's use of a helm seat of a boat to support a claim of her negligence or prevent the inference of defendant's negligence arising in the first instance
How later courts described this case
- concluding that there was nothing so unreasonable or abnormal in the plaintiff's use of a helm seat of a boat to support a claim of her negligence or prevent the inference of defendant's negligence arising in the first instance
- “Having determined that res ipsa loquitur applies, there remains the question of its procedural effect.”
- plaintiff was injured when a sailboat’s helm seat on which she was sitting collapsed
- the absence of negligence element is satisfied when "`the general experience and observation of mankind teaches that the result would not be expected without negligence'"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Hunter, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result of the majority but disagree with its disposition of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. I am in agreement with the statement of Justice Rosellini in his dissent:
I find it impossible to conceive of the doctrine [res ipsa loquitur] having any value to the jury unless the jury is instructed upon it. "Where certain facts are found by the jury, the law permits it to draw an inference. But, unless the jury is told that if it finds these facts it can draw this inference, the jury itself is left in a quagmire of confusion.
(Footnote omitted.)