Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Applied to Allow Motor Vehicle Incident Case to Proceed

In the case of Houck v. WLX, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-275 (M.D. Pa. March 10, 2022 Mariani, J.), the court denied summary judgment after finding that a Plaintiff had created enough of a record in a circumstantial case as to the justify the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in a case where an item allegedly fell off a Defendant’s truck, bounced, and went through the windshield of the Plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle with fatal results.

The court noted that, although there were no witnesses, the facts of the case, viewed in a manner most favorable to the Plaintiff as required by the applicable standard of review, established that an item from the Defendant’s truck could have possibly fallen off of the truck, bounced on the roadway, and ended up through the windshield of the decedent.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reid Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules That a Plaintiff Can Rely on Both Concrete Evidence and Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to Prove Negligence in the Same Case

In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision of Lageman v. Zepp, No. 21 MAP 2021 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Court thoroughly addressed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and its continuing validity in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the American law translation of that phrase is “the thing speaks for itself.”

Justice Wecht noted in his Opinion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been recognized in Pennsylvania as allowing for a category of circumstantial evidence which may suffice to establish negligence where more specific and concrete evidence of the events leading up to the injury eludes even diligent investigation. 

In essence, the doctrine was noted to recognize that one may conclude by the exercise of common sense that an injury could not have occurred under certain circumstances but for the negligence of another person even where that negligence cannot be concretely proven. 

Justice Wecht opened his engaging Opinion with the example of a Plaintiff walking on a public street and passing a Defendant’s shop at which point a barrel of flour fell upon the Plaintiff from a window above, resulting in serious injuries to the pedestrian Plaintiff.  The Court noted that this set of facts represented a classic example of when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be applied.

This Lageman case arose out of a medical malpractice action. The issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is precluded in a case where the Plaintiff has allegedly introduced enough “direct” evidence of the Defendant's negligence such that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not the only avenue towards a finding of liability.   In other words, whether the two (2) approaches to satisfying the Plaintiff’s evidentiary burden of proof are mutually exclusive. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that these avenues of satisfying the Plaintiff's burden of proof are not mutually exclusive and that, therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may still apply even in a case where a Plaintiff has also produced direct evidence of negligence on the part of a Defendant.

In so ruling, the Majority of the Court noted that it has long been the law of Pennsylvania that a Plaintiff has no obligation to choose one theory of liability to the exclusion of another. The Court reasoned that permitting a Plaintiff to present direct evidence while simultaneously invoking the res ipsa loquitur doctrine will only disadvantage a Defendant as to whom the claims becomes more facially meritorious as more competent evidence emerges.

The Court did note that, a Plaintiff must still make out a prima facie case to support a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction. In other words, a Plaintiff must prove that he or she has been injured by a casualty of a sort that normally would not have occurred but for negligence on the part of a Defendant.

In this regard, the Court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would obviously apply in the case of where a surgeon leaves a sponge in a patient and sews up the patient at the end of a surgery, an injury would seemingly not occur in the absence of negligence. 

Where, however, a jury is presented with two (2) versions of the event through conflicting evidence and may decide, based upon that evidence, what, in fact, occurred to lead to the injury, then perhaps the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not be applicable. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority decision written by Justice Wecht may click this LINK.  The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Baer can be viewed HERE.  The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Saylor can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Dale G. Larrimore of the Philadelphia law firm of Larrimore & Farnish, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Karolina Grabowska from www.pexels.com.

Claim Based on Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Rejected in Elevator Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Pyle v. Otis Elevator Co., No. 20-2393 (3d Cir. April 13, 2021) (Matey, J., Shwartz, J., Porter, J.) (Op. by Matey, J.)[Not Precedential], the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment in an elevator accident case.

According to the Opinion, an uneven elevator door allegedly caused the Plaintiff to trip and fall.    

In affirming the lower court decision, the appellate court reiterated the rule that the mere happening of an accident or injury does not establish negligence, inference or presumption of negligence, or a prima facie case of negligence. 

The court additionally ruled that a misleveled elevator, in and of itself, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and does not necessarily imply negligent elevator maintenance. The court also found that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply here because the Plaintiff failed to rule out any non-negligent reasons for his injuries, such as losing his balance or moving too quickly.

The court also confirmed that, in an elevator accident case, the Plaintiff must show that the elevator was in a defective or dangerous condition that was discoverable by reasonable inspection.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

A Primer on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

In the case of Snyder v. Scranton Hospital Co., LLC et al., No. 19-CV-83 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 28, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court denied the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment that asserted that the Plaintiff should not be permitted to rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in support of the claims presented.

According to the opinion, the Plaintiff underwent ear surgery but allegedly awoke with a severe left ulnar nerve neuropathy injury as a result of a compression injury allegedly due to the medical providers' failure to properly position, protect and assess his left arm while he was unconscious during the surgery.

The Plaintiff produced expert opinion evidence that such an injury does not happen during an ear surgery in the absence of negligence on the part of the medical providers.  The Plaintiff asserted that that expert evidence also served to eliminate other potential causes of the injury.

The defense produced its own expert testimony in support of claims that the Plaintiff 's injury was indeed the result of other unrelated causes.

The Court denied the motion given that there was a dispute between the experts as to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be applied.  In the end, that issue was left for the jury to decide.

This Opinion offers a detailed recitation of the law surrounding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Reviewed by Pennsylvania Superior Court

In the case Lageman v. Zepp, No. 756 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. July 20, 2020 Bowes, J., Olson, J., Stabile, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.) (Dissenting Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the denial of the Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Motions following a defense verdict in a case involving claims of medical malpractice.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court found that, with the help of expert opinion, Plaintiff had established all three elements of res ipsa loquitur in connection with the Defendant’s performance of the medical procedure at issue. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court emphasized that, while the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is usually associated with events that are within the common knowledge of laypersons and not requiring any expert testimony, the doctrine is not foreclosed where the Plaintiff also presents a medical expert offering evidence of other specific negligent conduct. 

This Opinion is also notable for the fact that the court ruled that a medical malpractice defendant is, for purposes of trial, is typically not to be considered an expert on his or her own behalf. 

The court additionally found that it was an abuse of discretion by the trial court to allow the Defendant doctor to demonstrate the procedure in question to the jury. The court noted that, if a demonstration was appropriate, it should have been done by the expert witness and not the party Defendant. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Could Be Applied Regarding Foreign Object in Food

In the case of Watkins v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., No. 3:2016-CV-02049 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2019 Mariani, J.), the court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the defense in a case in which the Plaintiff alleges that he sustained fractured teeth and a cut tongue as a result of biting into a hot dog that contained a sharp metal blade.

Of note is that the court ruled that the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur properly applies to a case involving the alleged presence of a metal knife blade in a hotdog.

The court noted that the Plaintiff testified that he did not do anything that could have introduced the blade into the hot dog. The court found that this adequately excluded other factors and allowed the doctrine Res ipsa loquitor to be applied.

Judge Mariani additionally ruled that the Defendant’s evidence that the Defendant did not use this type of blade in their production of hot dogs served to challenge the Plaintiff’s credibility and was an issue for the jury to decide, as opposed to be grounds for the entry of summary judgment.

On another unrelated issue in this case, the court ruled that, where the Plaintiff sought no discovery in this case, the Plaintiff could not seek discovery sanctions to bar Defendant’s witnesses for non-disclosure of information during the course of discovery.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Denied in Water Park Accident Case

In the case of Deleon v. MHC Timothy Lake N. Ltd. Partnership, No. 8652 - CV - 2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 29, 2017 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving injuries allegedly sustained by a minor Plaintiff while riding down a water slide at the Defendant’s water park.   The court essentially found that genuine issues of material fact existed to allow the case to proceed to a jury.  

According to the Opinion, the Defendant operated a water park at which the Plaintiff visited with her family and friends.   The Plaintiff made several trips down a water slide.  On the last trip, the Plaintiff emerged with a forehead laceration.  

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the laceration was caused by a jagged edge on the water slide.  However, deposition testimony indicated that the injury may have occurred instead when the Plaintiff hit her head on the water slide.  

The Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plaintiff admitted in discovery that the alleged jagged edge on the water slide did not exist.   In the alternative, the defense asserted that there was no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the Defendant of the allegedly defective condition.   The Defendant also maintained that the Plaintiff’s claim under res ipsa loquitur was not substantiated, as injuries on water slides were common.

The court rejected the defense argument relative to the res ipsa loquitur argument by noting that there were genuine issues of fact to be considered by a jury.  

The court additionally found that the inconsistent allegations by the Plaintiff as to how the laceration occurred were not enough to warrant summary judgment as the factual determination in that regard should be left to the jury.  

The court also rejected the defense argument that summary judgment was warranted given that the slide had been formally inspected three (3) days prior to the Plaintiff’s alleged incident.    The court noted that, even if the Defendant had passed the inspection, that did not eliminate the possibility that the inspector had missed a defect or that some other condition had occurred between the inspection and the Plaintiff’s accident that could have caused the injury.   Again, since there were issues of fact in this regard, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the case to proceed.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 13, 2018).  

A Sponge Left in the Gut Implicates Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine

In Fessenden v. Robert Packer Hospital, 2014 Pa. Super. 154 (July 23, 2014 Wecht, J.,  Lazarus, J., Musmanno, J.)(Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defense in a medical malpractice case. 

This case involved the surgeon team allegedly leaving an item inside the patient's body after a surgery.  This situation allegedly caused the Plaintiff to have to undergo two additional surgeries to clean up the issues created by the sponge.

Opinion by
Superior Court Judge David N. Wecht

The Superior Court reiterated the rule of law that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is available in medical malpractice claims involving items accidentally left inside a patient’s body after the completion of a surgery. 

The Court noted that the basic question in these types of cases was whether a particular defendant is the responsible cause of the injury.  The record before the court revealed no possibility of any third-party negligence.  More specifically, the Plaintiff had no other surgeries around the time in question.

In reversing the entry of summary judgment, the Superior Court noted that leaving a sponge behind is the prototypical example for the proper application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the medical malpractice context.


To read this Opinion online, please click HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.  I invite you to check out Attorney Beck's excellent and nationally renowned blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog, by clicking HERE.