Duncan v. Corbetta
577 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16308, 178 A.D.2d 459 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which permits an inference of negligence from the mere occurrence of an accident, is inapplicable when the plaintiff's own evidence indicates that the instrumentality causing the injury was not under the defendant's exclusive control at the time the negligent act occurred, such as when a defect was created prior to the defendant's ownership.
Facts:
- The defendant owned a residence that had a wooden exterior stairway.
- The stairway was designed and constructed before the defendant purchased the property.
- The stairway was built with non-pressure-treated lumber.
- Plaintiff William C. Duncan was at the defendant's residence and began to descend the stairway.
- As Duncan stepped on it, the top step of the stairway collapsed, causing him to sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed an action in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a trial-level court, to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, an intermediate 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 the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply in a negligence action where the plaintiff's expert testifies that the injury-causing defect was created by improper design and construction before the defendant acquired ownership and control of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ.)
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inappropriate where evidence suggests the defendant did not have exclusive control of the instrumentality at the time the negligent act took place. The doctrine requires that the event be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant. In this case, the plaintiffs’ own expert testified that the stairway was improperly designed and constructed prior to the defendant’s ownership and control. This testimony rendered it inappropriate to allow an inference that the defendant was responsible for the accident based on res ipsa loquitur. The jury was still properly able to consider whether the defendant failed to exercise due care in the maintenance or repair of the stairs, which is a separate question from the one answered by the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a critical element of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine: the defendant's exclusive control over the instrumentality of harm. It clarifies that a plaintiff can undermine their own ability to rely on the doctrine by introducing evidence that points to negligence by a third party, particularly a prior owner. The ruling distinguishes between liability stemming from negligent construction and liability from negligent maintenance, holding that a subsequent property owner's duty relates to maintenance, not to pre-existing, latent construction defects they did not create.
