Morejon v. Rais Construction Co.
7 N.Y.3d 203, 818 N.Y.S.2d 792, 851 N.E.2d 1143 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a negligence case may be granted summary judgment on the basis of res ipsa loquitur, but only in rare and exceptional cases where the plaintiff's circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant's response is so weak that the inference of the defendant's negligence is inescapable.
Facts:
- Rais Construction Company, owned by Cesar Rais, was performing construction work at a residence owned by Barry and Susan Kleinman.
- The estate of Fabio Pardo alleged that on December 26, 1998, while Pardo was delivering materials to the job site for Rais, a roll of roofing material fell from the roof and struck him on the head.
- Pardo's brother and sister-in-law claimed to have witnessed the incident.
- Pardo did not seek medical treatment for the alleged head injury until late February 1999, approximately two months after the incident.
- Cesar Rais testified that his crew had stopped work at the site three days before the alleged accident and that he had not engaged Pardo for any work that day.
- Rais also stated that he had terminated Pardo's employment weeks earlier due to safety concerns about Pardo's severe headaches.
- Barry Kleinman, the homeowner, testified that it had snowed the day before the alleged incident and that he observed no footprints or other disturbances in the snow at the worksite on the afternoon of December 26, 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- The estate of Fabio Pardo sued Rais Construction Company and its principals in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) for negligence.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- The trial court initially denied the motion but, upon reargument, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, stating as a matter of law that res ipsa loquitur may never be the basis for granting summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff.
- The plaintiff (appellant) then appealed that decision to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
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, as a matter of law, preclude a plaintiff from being granted summary judgment on the issue of liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenblatt, J.
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not create an absolute bar to a plaintiff obtaining summary judgment on liability. While res ipsa loquitur generally creates a permissible inference of negligence for a jury to consider, rather than a legal presumption, an exception exists for rare cases where the evidence is so compelling that the inference of negligence is inescapable. In such an exceptional circumstance, where the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is overwhelming and the defendant’s rebuttal is exceedingly weak, summary judgment for the plaintiff is appropriate. However, the present case is not one of those rare instances because there are significant, material questions of fact, including whether the alleged accident ever occurred at all. Therefore, while the lower appellate court was wrong in its absolute legal statement, its ultimate decision to deny summary judgment was correct.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that res ipsa loquitur is not merely a trial doctrine but can, in principle, support a pre-trial disposition like summary judgment. It rejects the Appellate Division's rigid rule that would have foreclosed this possibility, instead establishing a very high but not insurmountable standard for plaintiffs. By treating res ipsa loquitur as a form of circumstantial evidence to be weighed, the court allows for judicial efficiency in the rare 'slam dunk' case where no reasonable jury could find for the defendant. This approach aligns New York law with the modern view that procedural tools should be flexible and based on the strength of the evidence presented, rather than on categorical labels.
Unlock the full brief for Morejon v. Rais Construction Co.