Eversole v. Woods Acquisition, Inc.
135 S.W.3d 425 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when an instrumentality causes an injury shortly after the defendant serviced it, as the defendant's control at the time of the negligent act and superior knowledge can be inferred from the proximity in time and the unusual nature of the event.
Facts:
- In July 2000, Charles Eversole noticed an antifreeze leak in his 1997 Ford Thunderbird, which he had owned since it was new and had not previously experienced mechanical problems with.
- Eversole took the vehicle to Woods Acquisition, Inc. ('Woods') for repair of the engine's intake manifold, which was subject to a manufacturer's recall.
- To replace the intake manifold, a Woods mechanic disconnected, set aside, and then reconnected the vehicle's fuel lines.
- On July 5, 2000, Woods completed the repair and returned the vehicle to Eversole.
- Four days later, on July 9, 2000, after Eversole had driven the car for 137 miles, he noticed flames coming from under the vehicle's hood.
- The vehicle was destroyed by a fuel-based fire that originated in the engine compartment near the fuel lines Woods had worked on.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Eversole filed a lawsuit against Woods Acquisition, Inc. in a Missouri trial court.
- Eversole alleged alternative claims of breach of implied warranty and negligence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Eversole and awarded him $12,000 in damages.
- Woods Acquisition, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 establish a submissible case of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when their vehicle, which had no prior relevant mechanical issues, is destroyed by a fuel fire four days and 137 miles after a defendant repair shop performed work that required disconnecting and reconnecting the fuel lines that caused the fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardwick, J.
Yes. A plaintiff establishes a submissible case for negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where circumstantial evidence strongly supports the inference of negligence. The court found that Eversole satisfied all three elements of the doctrine. First, a fuel fire erupting in a three-year-old vehicle shortly after its fuel lines were manipulated is an unusual event that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Second, Woods had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the harm—the fuel lines—at the time the negligent act occurred. The short four-day period before the fire did not negate this control, as it is reasonable to infer a negligently reconnected fuel line could gradually loosen and leak. Third, Woods had superior knowledge of the cause because its mechanics performed the work, understood the fuel system, and had an opportunity to inspect the vehicle after the fire, while Eversole presented evidence that there was no intervening cause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine's 'control' and 'superior knowledge' elements in cases involving subsequent product failure after a repair. The decision establishes that the defendant does not need to have physical control of the instrumentality at the precise moment of injury; control at the time of the alleged negligent act is sufficient. It underscores that a short time frame and limited use between a service and a malfunction can create a strong inference of the defendant's negligence and superior knowledge, effectively shifting the burden to the defendant to explain what happened. This precedent is significant for plaintiffs in consumer repair cases, as it lowers the barrier to proving negligence when direct evidence of a specific error is unavailable.
Unlock the full brief for Eversole v. Woods Acquisition, Inc.