year one tort law case brief #3

Larson v. St. Francis Hotel – (negligence)

Larson v. St. Francis Hotel, 83 Cal.App.2d 210, 188 P.2d 513 (1948)

BY: James F. Polk – AISOL YEAR ONE STUDENT

———————– IRAC —————————

  • Issue: Was the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur applicable in this case?
  • Reasoning: Res Ipsa Loquitur requires:
    • There was an accident.
    • Exclusive control and management by the Defendant of the thing or instrumentality of the accident just prior to the accident.
    • The accident would not have occurred if the Defendant had been exercising ordinary care.
    • Res Ipsa Loquitur can have no application in a situation of divided causation and/or uncertain causation.
    • It must be probable that the causation was one other than solely the Defendant’s for the doctrine to not stand.
  • Analysis:  The Falling Chair in this Case was not under the exclusive control and management of the Defendant.
  • Conclusion:  The judgment appealed from is affirmed.  Peters, P. J., and Ward, J., concurred.

 

————–bullet point extraction of pertinent facts, timeline, issues and arguments.———-

  • People celebrating V-J Day in San Francisco on August 14, 1945.
  • Plaintiff hit on head with falling armchair.
  • Nobody saw it until it was 2-3 feet from hitting the Plaintiff on the head.
  • Plaintiff was knocked unconscious and received injuries and is seeking damages from Defendant.
  • Defendant is hotel.
  • Plaintiff is inferring that the armchair belonged to  the hotel.
  • There is no marking on the chair that the chair belonged to the hotel.
  • At the trial, the Plaintiff proved she was hit by a falling chair and that she was injured and simply argued Res Ipsa Loquitur.
  • The Defendant motioned for a nonsuit and the court granted a nonsuit.
  • The trial court correctly held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur did not apply.
  • Plaintiff cites: In Gerhart v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 56 Cal.App.2d 425 [132 P.2d 874] in which the court set the rules for the applicability of the res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) doctrine.  For a Plaintiff to avail themselves to the benefit of the doctrine, one must prove the following:
    • There was an accident.
    • Exclusive control and management by the Defendant of the thing or instrumentality of the accident just prior to the accident.
    • The accident would not have occurred if the Defendant had been exercising ordinary care.
    • Res Ipsa Loquitur can have no application in a situation of divided causation and/or uncertain causation.
    • It must be probable that the causation was one other than solely the Defendant’s for the doctrine to not stand.
  • Applying the above rules of Res Ipsa Loquitur to the case, the case does not stand.
    • A hotel does not have exclusive control of it’s furniture, neither actual nor potential.
    • Hotel Guests have at least partial control of the furniture.
  • The event is not likely to have been cause by any lack of ordinary care.
    • The event is really only likely to have happened due to the actions of a guest.
  • Placing bars on every window to prevent guests from throwing furniture out of the windows is not a reasonable requirement of a hotel.
  • Cases cited that were completely different than the case at bench:
    • In Michener v. Hutton, 203 Cal. 604 [265 P. 238, 59 A.L.R. 480] – pipe under exclusive control of appellants and ordinary care would have prevented it.
    • In Gerhart v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 56 Cal.App.2d 425 [132 P.2d 874] – an explosion of gas in a pipe under exclusive control of the Defendants and ordinary care would have prevented it.
    • In Helms v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 21 Cal.App.2d 711 [70 P.2d 247] – the glass portion of an electrolifier fell and injured a plaintiff and was under the exclusive control of the Defendant and ordinary care would have prevented it. In Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [68 P.2d 370] – plaster fell from ceiling and hit Plaintiff in bed below.  Plaster does not normally fall from ceilings and Defendant was in exclusive control and the ordinary care of a properly constructed ceiling would have prevented this.  (at least proper maintenance – so many hotel guests in the bed in the same place cause it undoubtedly and it was in need of maintenance, but……)
    • Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co., 26 Cal.App.2d 664 [80 P.2d 185, 1016], holds that the fact an accident occurred does not automatically result in an inference of negligence.  The res ipsa loquitur doctrine only holds if the instrumentality of the accident which caused the injury (ie the falling chair) must have been under the EXCLUSIVE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT of the Defendant.
    • The Defendant Biddlecomb v. Haydon, 4 Cal.App.2d 361, 364 [40 P.2d 873], as follows: “Neither does it apply where the cause of the accident is unexplained and might have been due to one of several causes for some of which the defendant is not responsible.” See, also, Hilson v. Pacific G. & E. Co., 131 Cal.App. 427, 434 [21 P.2d 662], which held that in a situation as last above quoted, the doctrine “can in no event apply.”
    • Yes the chair belonged to the hotel, but it is not normal for a chair to be thrown out of a window.  The chair did not slip out of an unsafe window nor off of an unsafe balcony and an employee of the hotel did not throw it.  It is unknown who threw it.  Therefore the hotel is not liable and the thing does not speak for itself.