Collins v. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc.
273 Ill. Dec. 494, 789 N.E.2d 394, 338 Ill. App. 3d 812 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied against multiple defendants who had consecutive, rather than joint or concurrent, control over a helpless plaintiff, provided all parties who exercised control are named in the complaint.
Facts:
- Laura Collins was an 83-year-old, bedridden woman who was unable to speak and had a prior leg amputation.
- On June 7, 1999, Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc. (Superior) transported Collins from her daughter's home to Alden Wentworth Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, Inc. (Alden).
- Collins remained at Alden for a five-day period, from June 7 to June 12, 1999.
- On June 12, 1999, Superior transported Collins from Alden back to her home.
- Upon her return, Collins's daughter discovered that Collins was dehydrated and in pain; a subsequent hospital visit revealed she had a fractured right tibia and fibula.
- Collins's daughter asserted that her mother was not injured before the period she was in the care of Superior and Alden.
- A physician's report attached to the complaint opined that Collins's fracture would not have occurred absent negligence and was caused by either Superior and/or Alden.
Procedural Posture:
- Eva Collins, as special administrator of Laura Collins's estate, filed a first amended complaint in the trial court against Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc. (Superior) and Alden Wentworth Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, Inc. (Alden).
- Count II of the complaint alleged negligence against both defendants under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- Superior and Alden filed motions to dismiss Count II for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendants did not exercise joint or concurrent control over the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered an order making the dismissal final and appealable as to Superior only.
- Plaintiff Collins (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of the claim against Superior (appellee) to the Illinois Appellate Court.
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 a plaintiff sufficiently plead a claim for negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur against two defendants when the defendants exercised consecutive, rather than joint, control over the helpless plaintiff during the period the injury occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice McBride
Yes, a plaintiff sufficiently pleads a claim for negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur against two defendants who exercised consecutive control over a helpless plaintiff. The purpose of res ipsa loquitur is to allow proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is primarily within the defendants' control. This purpose would be frustrated if a helpless plaintiff, unable to identify the specific tortfeasor, were barred from recovery simply because control was consecutive rather than concurrent. Citing Gatlin v. Ruder and Samansky v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, the court held that a plaintiff need not prove which defendant had control at the exact moment of injury or eliminate all other possibilities. Because Collins was helpless and entirely in the care of Superior and Alden during the relevant period, and both were named as defendants, the burden shifts to them to offer an explanation for the injury. The court distinguished cases like Loizzo because here, all potential tortfeasors in the chain of control were named defendants, leaving no possibility of an unnamed third party being responsible.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the application of res ipsa loquitur in Illinois by formally recognizing the theory of "consecutive control" in multi-defendant cases. It prevents defendants from escaping liability in situations involving vulnerable plaintiffs by simply pointing fingers at each other. The ruling lowers the pleading barrier for plaintiffs who are injured while being transferred between different caregivers, such as from an ambulance to a hospital or nursing home. This creates a stronger incentive for all parties in a chain of care to ensure patient safety, as they may all be brought into litigation to explain an otherwise unexplainable injury.
