Akiona v. United States
1991 WL 119562, 938 F.2d 158 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to infer negligence unless the plaintiff can prove that the defendant had exclusive control and management of the injury-causing instrumentality at the time of the alleged negligent act. Furthermore, an adverse inference from the destruction of evidence is improper unless there is a showing of bad faith or that the evidence was destroyed with notice of its potential relevance to litigation.
Facts:
- Between 1967 and 1969, a hand grenade was manufactured for the United States government as part of a lot that was shipped to various locations, including Hawaii.
- The government maintained a policy of destroying records pertaining to grenades two years after their final disposition.
- On June 1, 1985, nearly two decades after the grenade was manufactured and shipped, Dennis Keliinui Kaululaau threw the grenade in a restaurant parking lot in Honolulu.
- The grenade exploded, injuring plaintiffs Aaron Akiona, Adam Baker, and Edward Moore.
- Kaululaau was convicted of attempted murder but did not disclose how he acquired the grenade.
- The parties stipulated that Kaululaau possessed the grenade unlawfully and without the knowledge or consent of the government.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Akiona, Adam Baker, Edward Moore, and Bonnie Baker sued the United States government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The district court, in a nonjury trial on stipulated facts, found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding the government was negligent by applying res ipsa loquitur and shifting the burden of proof.
- The district court awarded general and special damages to the plaintiffs.
- The United States government (appellant) appealed the judgment on liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The plaintiffs (cross-appellants/appellees) filed a cross-appeal challenging the adequacy of the damages award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to infer government negligence when a plaintiff cannot prove the government maintained exclusive control over a hand grenade that caused injury almost 20 years after its manufacture, and can the burden of proof be shifted to the government for destroying records pursuant to a routine policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Rymer, Circuit Judge
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to infer government negligence, nor can the burden of proof be shifted to the government. To apply res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality at the time of the negligence. Here, the plaintiffs only established that the government possessed the grenade nearly two decades before the incident. Over that long period, the grenade could have been transferred, used, or otherwise left government control without any negligence, meaning the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential element of exclusive control. Additionally, shifting the burden of proof due to the government's destruction of records was an error. An adverse inference from the destruction of evidence is only appropriate when there is evidence of bad faith or notice of potential litigation. The government destroyed the records pursuant to a routine, pre-existing policy long before this lawsuit, with no indication of an intent to conceal information, making a punitive burden-shift inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the application of res ipsa loquitur in cases involving long-dormant instrumentalities, particularly against government entities. It reinforces that the 'exclusive control' element is a strict prerequisite that cannot be satisfied by merely showing the defendant's remote, initial possession. The ruling also solidifies the principle that routine, good-faith document destruction pursuant to a standard retention policy does not trigger an adverse inference or shift the burden of proof. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims where direct evidence is lost due to the passage of time and standard administrative practices.
