89. Should the court grant the motion?

The issue in this question is a combination of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and joint and several liability. Res ipsa is a doctrine that permits the factfinder to infer negligence when there is no direct evidence that the defendant acted negligently. To establish res ipsa, the plaintiff must show (i) the event that happened is one that usually does not occur absent the negligence of a party; (ii) the harm was caused by something in the defendant's exclusive control; and (iii) the plaintiff is not the one who caused the event to occur. Courts generally apply the «exclusive control» element liberally.

D is correct. Here, there is no evidence that the defendants as a group had control of the chair. Thus, res ipsa does not provide an inference of negligence in this situation, and the plaintiff must provide evidence of the defendants' negligence. Nor is there any evidence that the occupant-defendants were acting together. This is important because, under the doctrine of alternative liability, when the plaintiff's harm was caused by one of multiple defendants, but the plaintiff does not know which of them caused it, the court can shift the burden of proof as to who caused the harm to the defendants. This rule requires that: (i) it was a small number of defendants, (ii) each defendant's conduct was tortious, and (iii) the defendants are all before the court in the proceeding. There is no indication that the defendants all acted tortiously, and thus this rule is inapplicable.

A is incorrect. This answer misstates the law. It might be difficult for the pedestrian to determine which defendant caused the harm, but it would be unreasonable to permit the pedestrian to hold multiple innocent defendants liable for harm they had no part in causing.

B is incorrect. This answer choice correct identifies alternative liability as an issue in this question, but it comes to the incorrect conclusion by stating that it is a viable legal theory on these facts. As described above, alternative liability requires that all defendants have acted tortiously. There is no evidence that this was true here. Thus, alternative liability is not a theory on which the pedestrian may rely.

C is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the law. There are multiple ways through which the defendant may satisfy her burden under negligence law of showing who caused the harm, and some of them do not require the plaintiff prove a specific defendant was the factual cause. One example, discussed above, is alternative liability.