65. How should the trial judge rule?

The circumstantial evidence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur («the thing speaks for itself») deals with situations where the mere fact that an injury occurred can establish or tend to establish a breach of duty. Where the facts strongly indicate that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the defendant's negligence, the trier of fact may be permitted to infer that the defendant was probably negligent. Res ipsa loquitur requires the plaintiff to show: (i) an inference of negligence (i.e., that the accident causing the injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone in the defendant's position was negligent); (ii) negligence attributable to the defendant (i.e., evidence that this type of accident normally happens because of negligence, such as that the instrumentality that caused the injury was in the defendant's exclusive control); and (iii) that the plaintiff is free from negligence, meaning the injury was not attributable to him.

Res ipsa loquitur does not change the burden of proof or create a presumption of negligence. A successful res ipsa showing by the plaintiff amounts to a prima facie case, which will preclude the defendant from being awarded a directed verdict. However, if the defendant rebuts the res ipsa showing with evidence that he did exercise due care, it has the same effect as in all other cases. In that scenario, the jury may either find that the defendant's evidence overcomes the plaintiff's res ipsa showing and decline to infer liability, or it may reject the defendant's evidence and draw the permissible inference of negligence, finding for the plaintiff. Even if the defendant rests without offering evidence, the jury may still elect not to infer negligence.

D is correct. The jury may decide to infer negligence based on this evidence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The door that malfunctioned was in exclusive control of the supermarket, and it is the type of accident that would not normally occur unless there had been negligence involved. Even though the owner installed the door, the lease provided that the supermarket was responsible for all maintenance of the premises, which would include the door. The supermarket is also responsible to invitees to keep the premises reasonably safe. The jury could decide to infer negligence by the supermarket or decline to do so. Either way, judgment as a matter of law is not proper for either party because a reasonable jury could come to either conclusion.

A is incorrect. A reasonable jury could conclude that the supermarket was negligent OR that no party was negligent, based on the evidence. The mere fact that the door malfunctioned is not sufficient to hold the supermarket liable — such a finding would be based on strict liability, which does not apply here as no product or abnormally dangerous activity is involved.

B is incorrect. The shopper was not required to have joined all parties who may have been negligent. Moreover, the question is asking how the court should rule on the motions for judgment as a matter of law, and the supermarket has failed to show that no reasonable jury could find legally sufficient evidence to find for the shopper.

C is incorrect. Under the theory of res ipsa loquitur, which deals with situations where the fact that particular injury occurred may itself establish or tend to establish a breach of duty owed, the plaintiff's case is considerably easier because he does not have to show actual negligence on the defendant's part. This answer is incorrect because even though the plaintiff did not present testimony on the door's malfunction, the fact that the door opened the wrong way at all «speaks for itself.»