Lexplug logoLexplug

McDougald v. Perry

Supreme Court of Florida
716 So. 2d 783 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when an accident occurs that, based on common experience and general knowledge, would not ordinarily happen without a failure to exercise reasonable care by the person in exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the injury.


Facts:

  • Henry Perry worked for C & S Chemicals, Inc. as a driver of a tractor-trailer.
  • The trailer housed a 130-pound spare tire in a cradle underneath, secured by a chain fastened with a nut and bolt.
  • On July 26, 1990, as Perry drove the tractor-trailer over railroad tracks, the spare tire came out of its cradle and fell onto the highway.
  • The trailer's rear tires ran over the spare, launching it into the air.
  • The airborne spare tire then crashed into the windshield of a Jeep Wagoneer driven by Lawrence McDougald, who was traveling behind the truck.
  • After the accident, Perry observed that the chain used to secure the spare tire was dragging under the trailer.
  • Perry believed that a link in the chain had stretched, allowing it to slip from the nut and bolt that secured it.

Procedural Posture:

  • Lawrence McDougald sued Henry Perry and C & S Chemicals, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
  • The trial court judge instructed the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, McDougald.
  • The defendants, Perry and C & S Chemicals, appealed to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, becoming the appellants.
  • The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the res ipsa loquitur instruction was improper.
  • McDougald, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which granted the petition to resolve a conflict between appellate courts.

Locked

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 permit an inference of negligence when a spare tire becomes dislodged from its cradle under a tractor-trailer and causes an accident?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Wells

Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because a spare tire escaping from its cradle on a moving truck is the type of accident that, as a matter of common experience, would not ordinarily occur without negligence. The court reasoned that common sense dictates that a properly secured spare tire will stay with the vehicle unless there is a failure of reasonable care by the person or entity in control of that vehicle. The court rejected the lower court's reasoning that the existence of other possible explanations defeats the doctrine; a plaintiff is not required to eliminate all other possible causes, but only to show that negligence is the more likely explanation. The inference of negligence arises from the circumstances of the accident itself, particularly when direct proof is unavailable because the instrumentality causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control.


Concurring - Justice Anstead

Yes. The majority's conclusion represents a classic application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, rooted in common sense principles tracing back to the 1863 English case of Byrne v. Boadle. In that case, a barrel of flour fell from a window, and the court held that the event itself was prima facie evidence of negligence because barrels do not simply roll out of warehouses without carelessness. Similarly, a spare tire does not fall from a truck without some negligence, and the burden should be on the defendant, who controls the instrumentality, to prove otherwise.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the application of res ipsa loquitur in Florida for cases involving parts detaching from vehicles, often called 'wayward wheel' cases. It clarifies that for certain types of accidents, the event itself is sufficient to allow a jury to infer negligence, without the plaintiff needing to provide direct evidence or expert testimony on the specific negligent act. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in such cases, shifting the practical burden to the defendant to produce evidence showing they were not negligent. The ruling prevents defendants from defeating a negligence claim merely by speculating about other possible, non-negligent causes for the accident.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query McDougald v. Perry (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for McDougald v. Perry