Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
477 N.E.2d 924 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'exclusive control' element of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a flexible concept that is satisfied if the defendant had control of the instrumentality at the time of the alleged negligence, not necessarily at the moment of injury. The possibility of the plaintiff's contributory negligence does not preclude a res ipsa loquitur instruction where the doctrine is otherwise applicable.
Facts:
- Everett D. Shull, Sr., a truck driver, went to a B.F. Goodrich plant in Woodburn, Indiana, to pick up a load of tires.
- While on Goodrich's loading dock, Shull stood on a dockplate, a mechanical bridge between the dock and his trailer, which was owned and maintained by Goodrich.
- A Goodrich employee, James Vogel, helped Shull operate the dockplate, which initially failed to lock into position twice.
- On the third attempt, the dockplate appeared to lock, and Vogel walked away while Shull walked onto the dockplate's lip to enter his trailer.
- The dockplate suddenly malfunctioned and released to its fully elevated position, throwing Shull to the floor of his trailer and causing injury.
- Goodrich had sole responsibility for maintaining the dockplates since their installation in 1968.
- Goodrich's policy was to service the dockplates only after a problem was reported, rather than following the manufacturer's recommended preventative maintenance schedule.
- A Goodrich engineer testified that, based on the description of the event, the dockplate's locking mechanism was likely faulty.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Everett D. Shull, Sr. and Lapaloma Shull sued defendant B.F. Goodrich in a trial court for personal injury and loss of consortium.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of evidence, the Shulls tendered a jury instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which the trial court refused to give.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, B.F. Goodrich, and the court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The Shulls (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District (this court), against B.F. Goodrich (appellee).
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 a trial court err in refusing to give a jury instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when there is evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the injuring instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control for maintenance purposes and that the accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, Judge
Yes. A trial court errs by refusing a res ipsa loquitur instruction when the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find the doctrine's elements are met. The court found that the Shulls presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that 1) the dockplate would not have malfunctioned absent negligence and 2) Goodrich had exclusive control over it. The first element was supported by evidence that unexplained machinery failure is often due to defects or improper maintenance, and Goodrich admitted to not following the manufacturer's preventative maintenance plan. The second, and key, element of 'exclusive control' is a flexible concept that refers to control at the time of the alleged negligence—in this case, the maintenance of the dockplate—not necessarily at the moment of injury. Goodrich's exclusive responsibility for maintenance satisfied this element. The court clarified that a plaintiff's potential contributory negligence is a separate question for the jury and does not, by itself, prevent the application of res ipsa loquitur.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'exclusive control' element of res ipsa loquitur in Indiana, moving away from a rigid requirement of control at the moment of injury. It establishes that control is properly assessed at the time of the defendant's alleged negligent act or omission, such as the failure to maintain equipment. This precedent makes the doctrine more accessible to plaintiffs injured by malfunctioning instrumentalities, even when the plaintiff is interacting with the object at the time of injury. The case also reinforces the principle that contributory negligence is a distinct issue for the jury and does not automatically bar a plaintiff's reliance on the inference of negligence provided by res ipsa loquitur.
Unlock the full brief for Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co.