Fowler v. Seaton
394 P.2d 697, 61 Cal. 2d 681, 39 Cal. Rptr. 881 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply when a plaintiff under the exclusive control of a defendant suffers an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, especially when the defendant, who is in a superior position to know the cause, offers inferably false or contradictory explanations for the injury.
Facts:
- Jenny Gene Fowler, a three-year and ten-month-old child, attended the Happy Day Nursery School, a private preschool owned and operated by Annabelle Seaton.
- On the morning of January 21, 1959, Jenny's mother left her at the school in good health and sound physical condition.
- When her mother picked her up that evening, Seaton stated that Jenny had an 'accident' and had wet her pants.
- Later at home, Jenny's parents discovered a large, protruding bump on her forehead and that her eyes were crossed.
- In response to a call from Jenny's mother, Seaton changed her explanation, stating that another young child had struck Jenny in the forehead with his hand.
- Medical examination revealed Jenny had suffered a severe brain concussion, and a medical expert was prepared to testify that such an injury could not have been caused by a blow from a small child's bare hand.
- Due to her age and the shock of the incident, Jenny was unable to recall or communicate how she was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Jenny Gene Fowler, through her guardian, sued defendant Annabelle Seaton in a California trial court for damages from personal injuries.
- By stipulation of the parties, the trial court agreed to rule on a motion for nonsuit based solely on the plaintiff's opening statement.
- After the opening statement, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit and entered judgment accordingly.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment of nonsuit to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a case where a young child enters a private nursery school in good health and is returned to her parents with a serious, unexplained injury, and where the school's owner offers conflicting and inferably false explanations for that injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies under these facts, as a jury could reasonably conclude that the injury was more likely than not the result of the defendant's negligence. The court reasoned that the injury—a brain concussion—is not one that ordinarily occurs at a nursery school in the absence of negligence. The defendant had exclusive control over the plaintiff, who, due to her age, could not be contributorily negligent. Crucially, the defendant's conflicting and inferably false explanations (first wetting her pants, then an impossible blow from another child) give rise to an inference of consciousness of guilt. Where a defendant in a superior position to know the facts gives a false explanation, a jury can infer that the defendant is hiding their own negligence, satisfying the requirements for res ipsa loquitur.
Dissenting - Schauer, J.
No. The plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The dissent argued that the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the accident was more probably than not caused by the defendant's negligence, and she failed to do so. The plaintiff presented no evidence about the school's condition or the adequacy of supervision. The mere occurrence of an injury, even a serious one, is not enough, as children commonly suffer bumps during play. Furthermore, the defendant's explanations were not necessarily false and did not justify shifting the burden of proof; at most, they were unsatisfactory. The majority's holding improperly allows for speculation and effectively imposes absolute liability on the school for any unexplained injury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the application of res ipsa loquitur, particularly in cases involving vulnerable plaintiffs who cannot testify about the cause of their injuries. The court established that a defendant's conflicting or inferably false explanations can serve as circumstantial evidence of negligence, helping to satisfy the doctrine's requirements. This precedent places a greater burden on caregivers, such as schools and medical providers, to offer credible explanations when a person in their exclusive care suffers an unusual injury. The ruling has been influential in subsequent cases where a plaintiff's inability to provide direct evidence is due to their age, medical condition, or the nature of the incident itself.
