Miles v. St. Regis Paper Co.
467 P.2d 307, 1970 Wash. LEXIS 376, 77 Wash. 2d 828 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied to infer negligence when an injurious event ordinarily does not happen without negligence, the instrumentality causing the event is within the defendant's ultimate exclusive control despite shared operational input, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the event.
Facts:
- Claud Miles, Sr. was working as a member of an unloading crew for 'D' Street Rafting Company at their premises in Tacoma, Washington.
- Miles was assigned the duty of releasing cables and binders that secured loads of logs on flatcars of a logging train operated by Northern Pacific Railroad Company.
- Three logs rolled from the top of a flatcar, crushing and instantly killing Miles.
- Employees of St. Regis Paper Company loaded the logs onto the flatcars at Lake Kapowsin, and both St. Regis and Northern Pacific conducted subsequent inspections.
- Miles had released one binder on the fatal load, and the other binder's cable was broken, but evidence suggested a load could be stable at one end and not at the other.
- Conflicting testimony existed regarding whether the train had been moved 15-20 seconds before the accident, and whether the 'D' Street Rafting Company or Northern Pacific Railroad Company had ultimate control over train movement during unloading.
- Northern Pacific's train crew members present at the scene could not see Miles just prior to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy Miles, individually and as administratrix of Claud Miles, Sr.'s estate, filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against St. Regis Paper Company, Inc., Northern Pacific Railroad Company, Inc., and certain employees.
- The trial court granted St. Regis Paper Company's motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at the end of the plaintiff’s case, dismissing St. Regis from the suit.
- The trial court denied Northern Pacific Railroad Company's motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, made at the end of the plaintiff’s case and again at the end of all evidence.
- A jury returned a verdict of $35,000 for Dorothy Miles against Northern Pacific Railroad Company.
- The trial court denied Northern Pacific Railroad Company's motion for a judgment n.o.v. or for a new trial.
- Northern Pacific Railroad Company appealed the trial court's judgment.
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, and was it proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on it, when a worker is killed by logs falling from a train whose movement was directed by the unloading company but ultimately controlled by the railroad, and there is evidence the train moved just prior to the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Finley, J.
Yes, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on it, because there was sufficient evidence that the train, as the instrumentality causing the logs to fall, was under the exclusive control of the railroad, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident. The court reasoned that the incident, where logs rolled from a flatcar, is an event that ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent. While 'D' Street Rafting Company employees relayed signals for train movement, the ultimate decision to move the train and the physical act of moving it remained with Northern Pacific's engineer or fireman. Thus, the train of flatcars was within the 'exclusive control' of the railroad for the purpose of applying res ipsa loquitur. The court also found that Mr. Miles's action of releasing a binder did not preclude the doctrine's application, as evidence suggested a load could be unstable at one end while appearing stable at the other, and rough train movement could destabilize a load even after a binder was released. The testimony that the train moved 15 to 20 seconds before the logs fell further supported an inference of the railroad's negligence. The court cited Kind v. Seattle for the prerequisites of the doctrine and likened the case to Byrne v. Boadle, the foundational case for res ipsa loquitur, where a falling barrel of flour implied negligence.
Dissenting - Neill, J.
No, the res ipsa loquitur instruction was improperly given because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the instrumentality was under the exclusive control of the defendant railroad, and the instruction itself was an incorrect statement of the doctrine. Justice Neill argued that all witnesses, including railroad employees, largely agreed that the 'D' Street Rafting Company employees directed the unloading process and train movements once the train arrived, even if a railroad employee's hand was on the throttle. This shared control meant the railroad did not have the necessary exclusive control for res ipsa loquitur to apply, as negligence could have been attributable to others, or to no one. Justice Neill cited Hogland v. Klein and Edwards v. A.F.J. Distributors, Inc. regarding control not always being physical, but emphasized the lack of exclusivity here. Furthermore, Justice Neill criticized the jury instruction for not specifying 'exclusive control,' allowing the jury to apply the doctrine based on any degree of control, which is legally inaccurate and could unfairly favor the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case provides important clarification on the 'exclusive control' element of res ipsa loquitur, particularly in situations involving shared operational responsibility. The majority’s reasoning emphasizes that ultimate physical control and decision-making power, even when responding to external signals, can satisfy the exclusivity requirement. Conversely, the dissent highlights the need for a truly exclusive control and underscores the importance of precisely worded jury instructions to avoid misapplying complex legal doctrines, indicating a potential pitfall for future litigants where control is ambiguous. The case suggests that even indirect control or the power to override instructions might be enough to establish 'exclusive control' for res ipsa loquitur purposes, which could broaden the doctrine's applicability.
