Carroll v. May Department Stores
180 S.W.2d 793, 1944 Mo. App. LEXIS 186, 237 Mo. App. 983 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a defendant's exclusive right of control over the premises from which an injury-causing instrumentality fell is sufficient to establish the control element, even if third parties had access, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove it was not negligent.
Facts:
- May Department Stores Company operated a department store in St. Louis, which included small, private 'listening rooms' on the eighth floor for customers to play phonograph records.
- These rooms were furnished with chairs, a victrola, and heavy metal ash stands.
- Access to the listening rooms was controlled by store employees, as the doors locked automatically and could only be opened with a key held by staff.
- The store had previously experienced problems with teenage customers, known as 'jitterbugs,' misbehaving in the rooms, including throwing items from the windows.
- In response to these incidents, the store installed mechanical devices on the windows to make them difficult to open and to cause them to close automatically unless propped open.
- On August 27, 1942, Signe A. Carroll was walking on the public sidewalk adjoining the store.
- A metal ash stand, identical to those used in the eighth-floor listening rooms, fell from a window in room 10 and struck Mrs. Carroll, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- J. Charles Carroll sued May Department Stores Company in a trial court for damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1500.
- The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to make a case for the jury under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
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 hold a store owner liable for an injury caused by an object falling from one of its rooms, even where the evidence suggests a customer might have been involved, if the owner retained the exclusive right of control over access to that room?
Opinions:
Majority - McCullen, J.
Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because the defendant retained the exclusive right of control over the premises from which the object fell, creating a prima facie case of negligence. The court applied the three-part test for res ipsa loquitur established in McCloskey v. Koplar: (1) the occurrence does not ordinarily happen without negligence; (2) the instrumentality was under the defendant's management and control; and (3) the defendant has superior knowledge of the cause. The court emphasized that the 'control' element refers to the 'right of control,' not necessarily continuous physical possession. Because only defendant’s employees with keys could grant access to the locked listening rooms, defendant maintained the right of control. The possibility that a 'jitterbug' customer caused the stand to fall was deemed mere speculation and conjecture, not rising to the level of an equally probable cause that would defeat the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the burden shifted to the defendant to produce evidence showing it was not negligent, and the plaintiff's case was sufficient to be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the 'control' element of res ipsa loquitur hinges on the defendant's right of control, not constant physical supervision. It clarifies that a defendant cannot defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by merely speculating about the possible intervention of a third party, especially when the defendant regulates access to the area in question. This precedent makes it more difficult for owners of premises open to the public to evade liability for unexplained accidents by blaming unidentified customers, requiring them to rebut the inference of negligence with actual evidence rather than conjecture.
