Sweeney v. Erving
228 U.S. 233, 33 S. Ct. 416, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2369 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows for an inference of negligence from the circumstances of an injury, but it does not shift the ultimate burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.
Facts:
- Sweeney was under treatment by Dr. Kerr for a fractured rib.
- Dr. Kerr arranged for Sweeney to have an X-ray diagnosis performed by Dr. Erving, a specialist.
- Sweeney visited Dr. Erving's office four times, and on each occasion, he subjected her to several X-ray exposures.
- Before the first procedure, Dr. Erving and his wife, who was his assistant, assured Sweeney that the X-ray was not dangerous.
- During her fourth visit, Sweeney felt faint, and about five hours later, her back, the area exposed to the X-rays, became red and irritated.
- The irritation developed into a severe and lasting X-ray burn, which caused significant suffering and prevented Sweeney from being able to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Sweeney sued Dr. Erving for negligence in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the court of first instance.
- The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, Dr. Erving.
- Sweeney, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Sweeney then brought the case to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error.
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, when applicable, shift the ultimate burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant to prove an absence of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Pitney
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the defendant. The doctrine means that the facts of an occurrence warrant an inference of negligence, not that they compel such an inference. It provides circumstantial evidence of negligence to be weighed by the jury and calls for an explanation from the defendant, but it does not convert the defendant's general denial into an affirmative defense. The plaintiff always retains the burden of persuasion, and when all the evidence is submitted, the jury must decide whether the preponderance of evidence is with the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in federal courts, establishing it as an evidentiary rule rather than a burden-shifting doctrine. The Court holds that the doctrine allows a plaintiff to survive a defendant's motion for a directed verdict by creating a permissible inference of negligence, thus ensuring the case can reach a jury. However, it preserves the fundamental principle that the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. This prevents defendants from being unfairly tasked with proving a negative (i.e., their lack of negligence) and maintains the traditional allocation of proof in tort actions.
