You are here: / / Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down

Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down

The First Department explained the application of res ipsa loquitur, where it was alleged a garage door suddenly came down on plaintiff’s head, as follows:

The motion court correctly determined that res ipsa loquitur applies in this action involving an accident that occurred, according to plaintiff’s testimony, when a garage door suddenly fell and struck him on the head, since this is the type of event that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence … . Notwithstanding defendants’ contentions that others could have had access to the garage door, plaintiff demonstrated sufficient exclusivity of control. “[R]es ipsa loquitur does not require sole physical access to the instrumentality causing the injury and can be applied in situations where more than one defendant could have exercised exclusive control” … . Hutchings v Yuter, 2013 NY Slip Op 04988, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

You might also like
THEORIES OF LIABILITY NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM THE NOTICE OF CLAIM CAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS.
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)
People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker
LAWSUIT INVOLVED WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS LOCATED IN RUSSIA, DISMISSAL BASED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS PROPER.
NO NEED TO SHOW LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; ENOUGH TO SHOW PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THE LADDER REMAINED UPRIGHT (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY VALUE; THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION CANNOT BE CURED IN REPLY; FAILURE TO REGISTER AN APARTMENT WITH THE CITY DHCR AND INCREASING THE RENT DO NOT DEMONSTRATE A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

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

Default Finding Should Not Have Been Made Where Attorney Appeared and Asked... Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal