 |
| The Court of Special Appeals holding reiterates that scooters and moving cars do not mix for the purposes of res ipsa loquitur. |
Cohen v. Veolia Transp. Servs.,
Inc., No. 0199 (Md. App. Feb. 29, 2016).
Ordinarily, the fact that an
accident occurred does not mean that it was caused by negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, however, permits a factfinder to conclude the
existence of negligence though the simple occurrence of an injury and the
circumstances surrounding it. The Court
of Special Appeals recently addressed this infrequently utilized doctrine in a
case involving a Plaintiff that was seated in a motorized scooter, while being
transported in a mobility van. The
scooter had been initially strapped to the van by the driver, and the scooter then
tipped over, causing injury to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant was the transportation service hired to transport Plaintiff
and her son in the mobility van.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for
negligently securing the scooter straps. Due to the lack of direct evidence at
trial, Plaintiff sought to apply the doctrine res ipsa loquitur to establish her claim. Despite testifying that they both saw the
driver secure straps from the van to the scooter, neither Plaintiff nor
Plaintiff’s son knew how the driver actually handled the straps. Notably, Plaintiff also testified that the
scooter manual contained a warning that sitting on the scooter while in a
moving vehicle was dangerous. At the
close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant moved for judgment, arguing that res ipsa loquitur could not be applied,
and, therefore, there was no evidence of a breach of duty, and the trial court
agreed. After granting Defendant’s
motion for judgment, Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals
affirmed the trial court’s ruling in the instant unreported opinion.
The Court of Special Appeals
reiterated the long-standing doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur: a plaintiff must establish: (1) an accident that would not
ordinarily happen without negligence; (2) that said accident was caused by an event
that was within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) no action by anyone
else, including the plaintiff, was a cause of the event.
Addressing the first element, the
Court of Special Appeals found that nothing in the record demonstrating that a motorized
scooter would not tip over absent negligence.
Regarding the second element, the Court found that, because other
individuals could have damaged the straps in the van, there was no exclusive
control. The Court also found the third
element lacking, observing that the scooter’s manual—as acknowledged by the Plaintiff—stated
that it was dangerous to ride the scooter in a moving vehicle; thus, the Court found
that Plaintiff may have also contributed to tipping her scooter.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is rarely used in
cases involving auto accidents, and if it is, the situation is typically
unusual, as in Cohen. The factors contributing to a collision
between two moving vehicle are so numerous that it is almost impossible to show
that a defendant had exclusive control over these factors, thereby producing the
accident. This being the case, Maryland
courts will not apply res ipsa loquitor
to cases where an auto accident has more than one case or where there is no
evidence of a specific cause of the accident.
Cohen reminds us that res ipsa loquitor is rarely a substitute
for direct evidence of a breach of duty.
It is doctrine applicable only where an injury cannot be explained
absent some negligence on defendant’s part.
