Lexplug logoLexplug

Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado
165 Colo. 175, 438 P.2d 501 (1968)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence from the mere occurrence of an accident, does not apply if the plaintiff has equal or superior means of information to explain the cause of the accident and can show specific acts of negligence.


Facts:

  • Wohl Shoe Company operated a retail shoe department within a larger department store.
  • The department was furnished with customer chairs and a tall display table with multiple shelves.
  • Two lightweight, 14-inch-high shoe display stands were placed on the top shelf of the display table.
  • The plaintiff, a customer, was directed to sit in a chair located a few inches in front of the display table.
  • After trying on a pair of shoes, the plaintiff returned to the same chair to sit down.
  • As the plaintiff sat, her chair bumped the display table with enough force to dislodge one of the display stands.
  • The display stand fell from the top shelf and struck the plaintiff on the head, causing injury.
  • An identical shoe stand at the opposite end of the same shelf did not fall.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff sued Wohl Shoe Company and Kaufman's, Inc. for personal injuries in the trial court.
  • At the close of evidence, the court granted a motion to dismiss the claim against Kaufman's, Inc.
  • The trial court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and submitted the case against Wohl Shoe Company to a jury.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Wohl Shoe Company.
  • The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
  • The plaintiff, as plaintiff-in-error, sought a writ of error from the state's highest court to review the trial court's judgment.

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 when a plaintiff, injured by a falling object in a store, has the means available to establish the defendant's specific acts of negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Kelley

No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. This doctrine is a rule of necessity to be used only when the instrumentality causing the injury is under the defendant's exclusive control and the plaintiff has no means of determining the specific cause of the accident. Here, the plaintiff had the means to demonstrate specific negligence; for instance, she could have presented evidence that the display table was unstable, that the shoe stand was inherently wobbly, or that placing such a stand high above a customer's head was a negligent act. The doctrine cannot be invoked when the plaintiff has equal or superior means of information regarding the cause of the accident, as it is not a substitute for proving negligence when such proof is available. A storekeeper is not an insurer of a customer's safety, and the mere happening of an accident does not raise a presumption of negligence outside the narrow confines of this doctrine.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the traditional and narrow application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. It clarifies that the doctrine is not a procedural shortcut for plaintiffs who fail to investigate or prove specific acts of negligence by the defendant. The ruling establishes that the plaintiff's ability to access information about the cause of the harm is a critical factor, precluding the use of res ipsa loquitur if the plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to discover and prove the defendant's specific breach of duty. This preserves the fundamental burden on the plaintiff to prove the elements of negligence in cases where the evidence is not exclusively within the defendant's control or knowledge.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc. (1968)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"