You are here: / / Inference of Defendant’s Negligence Was Not “Inescapable”—Summary...

Inference of Defendant’s Negligence Was Not “Inescapable”—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted to Plaintiff Pursuant to the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Plaintiff was struck by a box which fell from a shelf in a retail store.  The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not make the inference of defendant’s negligence “inescapable:”

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident” … . Since “the circumstantial evidence allows but does not require the jury to infer that the defendant was negligent . . . res ipsa loquitur evidence does not ordinarily or automatically entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment . . . even if the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is unrefuted” … . “[O]nly in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment” … . “That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions on the issue of res ipsa loquitur were insufficient to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs did not establish, by sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof, “that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Hoeberlein v Bed Bath & Beyond, 2015 NY Slip Op 00497, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

You might also like
Town’s Duty to Maintain Roadways in a Safe Condition Extends to the Maintenance of Trees Not Located on Town Property—Here a Tree Limb Fell Onto Plaintiffs’ Moving Vehicle
SENDING THE VERDICT SHEET BACK TO THE JURY WITH A MESSAGE CONVEYED BY A COURT OFFICER, IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, REQUIRED REVERSAL.
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO COMPLETE PROVIDING DISCOVERY BY THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (5); DEFENDANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INSPECTION WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THE LATENT DEFECT, A SNOW COVERED HOLE IN AN AREA NOT USED AS A WALKWAY, THE LANDOWNER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Mandamus to Compel Explained (Not Met Here)
THE COMPOSITE LIEN ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT INVALID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SHOWN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HIRED THE RESPONDENT IN SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS; THE LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISCHARGED ON THE GROUND THE AMOUNT WAS WILFULLY EXAGGERATED, A FINDING WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (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

Question of Fact Whether Licensed Driver Properly Supervised Young Driver with... Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing...