You are here: / / Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of T...
,

Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of Theory.

“Since the [res ipsa loquitur] doctrine merely permits an inference arising from the evidence in a negligence case, the plaintiff’s failure to plead res ipsa loquitur does not foreclose its application on summary judgment or at trial.”  Wicks vs Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., 2011-01891, Index No. 1843/08 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

You might also like
CLAIMANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF USE OF THE CONDEMNED LAND FOR HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.
Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious
IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT IN A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, CREDIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).
BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER REQUESTED AND WAS ENTITLED TO AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT TO HELP PREPARE A DEFENSE; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Causes of Action Not in Notice of Claim Dismissed. Expert Opinion Must Be Based On Facts in Record or Personally Known.