87. Should the court grant the hospital's motion?

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.

B is correct. There is sufficient evidence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur for a jury to infer negligence by the hospital, and as such, granting summary judgment for the hospital would be improper because there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Res ipsa allows a plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence that a jury may infer negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the injury. The theory is that the harm would not have occurred without negligence. To support a res ipsa showing, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was in exclusive control of the instrumentality and that the incident would not generally have occurred in the absence of negligence. The hospital was in charge of maintaining a door that malfunctioned. A jury could find that the hospital is liable for the patient's injuries under this principle because the incident would not have occurred unless someone was negligent.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The motion should be denied, but not because the jury could find a latent defect in the doors. The patient has produced no evidence of specific conduct or neglect on the part of the hospital that would have caused the automatic doors to malfunction. Therefore, the proper basis for denying the motion would not be because the jury could find that there was a latent defect in the doors. It should be denied because the plaintiff has made a res ipsa showing that would allow the court to infer negligence based on the circumstantial evidence presented.

C is incorrect. In order to overcome a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff is not required to directly establish that the injury was caused by negligence. Rather, it is enough to produce evidence that would allow a jury to infer negligence because, when «the thing speaks for itself,» the defendant was probably negligent.

D is incorrect. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening event that negates the element of proximate causation. An intervening event may eliminate the defendant's liability if it was a third party's intentional tort or other action that was unforeseeable. However, the nurse here was pushing a wheelchair through a set of automatic doors at a normal pace, during the course of her job. There was no superseding cause to shield the hospital from responsibility for this task performed reasonably by its employee.