Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
83 Cal. App. 2d 210, 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1069, 188 P.2d 513 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply unless the plaintiff proves that the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's exclusive control and that the accident is of a type that ordinarily would not occur without the defendant's negligence.
Facts:
- On V-J Day, August 14, 1945, there was widespread and exuberant celebration in San Francisco.
- Plaintiff was walking on a public sidewalk on Post Street, adjacent to the St. Francis Hotel.
- As Plaintiff stepped out from under the hotel's marquee, she was struck on the head by a heavy, overstuffed armchair that fell from above.
- Plaintiff was knocked unconscious and sustained significant injuries as a result of the impact.
- While it was inferred the chair came from a room in the St. Francis Hotel, no one witnessed the event, and hotel guests had access to and partial control of the furniture within their rooms.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the owners of the St. Francis Hotel in a California trial court, seeking damages for personal injuries.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- After the plaintiff presented her evidence and rested her case, the defendants moved for a nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for a nonsuit, resulting in a judgment for the defendants.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to hold a hotel liable for injuries to a pedestrian caused by a piece of its furniture falling from the building, when the hotel does not have exclusive control over the furniture in its guest rooms?
Opinions:
Majority - Bray, J.
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply because the St. Francis Hotel did not have exclusive control over the chair that caused the plaintiff's injury. For res ipsa loquitur to apply, the plaintiff must prove that the instrumentality causing the harm was under the defendant's exclusive control and management. A hotel does not have exclusive control of its furniture; guests have at least partial control. Furthermore, the accident is not one that ordinarily would not happen without the hotel's negligence; it is equally, if not more, probable that a hotel guest threw the chair from a window. Because responsibility is divided and the accident could have been caused by a third party for whom the defendant is not responsible, the doctrine cannot be used to infer the hotel's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'exclusive control' element of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, particularly in premises liability cases involving third-party actors. It establishes that for movable objects accessible to guests or customers, a business owner is not considered to have exclusive control, preventing plaintiffs from relying on this doctrine to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The ruling places a higher burden on plaintiffs in such cases to produce direct evidence of the defendant's negligence. This precedent significantly impacts premises liability law by limiting the application of res ipsa loquitur in situations where injuries are caused by the unpredictable actions of patrons or guests.
Unlock the full brief for Larson v. St. Francis Hotel