What causes of action can use res ipsa loquitur to identify an element?
Res ipsa loquitur is not a cause of action. It is a method of proving an otherwise pleaded claim through circumstantial evidence, principally by permitting an inference of breach of a duty of care and, in some jurisdictions and circumstances, causation. There is no jurisdiction-independent list of every claim in which it may be used; the question is whether the governing jurisdiction permits the inference on the particular facts.[1][2]
Claims for which the supplied authorities support its use
| Underlying cause of action | Element res ipsa may help establish | Important limit |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary negligence, including injuries involving falling objects, equipment, or premises | The defendant’s negligent conduct or breach may be inferred from an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, where the requisite connection to the defendant and absence of plaintiff contribution are shown. The falling-barrel case is the classic example.[6] | An accident alone does not invariably establish negligence. The occurrence and the defendant’s responsibility must support the inference.[5] |
| Medical malpractice and hospital negligence | Breach and, where the jurisdiction’s formulation permits, causation. Examples include an unexplained unusual injury to an unconscious patient during treatment and a surgical sponge left in a patient.[5][2] | A poor surgical outcome is not enough. New Jersey, for example, requires expert testimony establishing that the medical community recognizes the particular occurrence as one that ordinarily does not happen absent negligence when that proposition is beyond lay knowledge.[1] |
| Negligence involving elevators or other maintained equipment | Breach may be inferred even when the plaintiff cannot identify the precise defective component, if the occurrence and the defendant’s responsibility satisfy the doctrine. An elevator-door injury supplied a potential basis for applying res ipsa notwithstanding insufficient proof of notice of a particular defect.[4] | Plead the underlying negligence claim, not a freestanding “res ipsa loquitur” count.[4] |
| Negligent manufacture of a product, potentially | Manufacturing negligence may be inferred if the applicable jurisdiction’s requirements—including responsibility for the instrumentality and adequate exclusion of other causes—are met. California’s discussion of bottling cases recognizes that actual possession at the moment of injury need not always be indispensable where the product’s condition did not change after it left the defendant.[5] | Do not assume the doctrine applies to a medical-device claim. A federal court applying Kentucky law rejected its use where other causes were not ruled out and the manufacturer no longer controlled the implanted valve; it also noted that Kentucky’s courts had not resolved the issue.[3] |
The operative distinction is element versus claim: res ipsa ordinarily supplies a permissible inference, not an independent duty, automatic liability, or a substitute for proving damages. Pennsylvania describes it as permitting an inference of negligence and causation when its conditions are met; New Jersey emphasizes that it is an evidentiary device rather than an independent cause of action.[2][1] Thus, the defensible answer is negligence-based causes of action wherever the jurisdiction-specific prerequisites are satisfied, rather than a closed catalogue of tort labels. It should not be pleaded as a separate cause of action.[4]
Sources & References
- Smallwood v. Mitchell, 264 N.J. Super. 295 (1993)
- Fessenden v. Robert Packer Hospital, 1334 MDA 2013 (2014)
- Enlow v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 738 (W.D. Ky. 2003)
- Ianotta v. Tishman Speyer Props., Inc., 2007-09690 (2007)
- Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (1944)
- Byrne v. Boadle, 159 E.R. 299 (1863)