860 F.3d 995
7th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Cedric Smith, a pretrial detainee, sat on a metal stool in a secure U.S. Marshals Service attorney interview room at the Rock Island courthouse on Jan. 18, 2013, and fell when the stool tilted backward, striking his head; he later was treated for a stroke and alleges lasting injury.
- Smith alleges he observed bolts missing from the stool’s underside and that the stool wobbled again when he attempted to rise; on a later visit the stool had been welded in place.
- The Marshals Service inspects furniture and equipment in those interview rooms weekly and controls access to the room; typically detainees’ handcuffs are removed but leg irons remain.
- Smith filed an FTCA claim against the United States for ordinary negligence based on premises/equipment maintenance and invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to permit an inference of negligence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding alternative explanations (e.g., Smith’s own misstep or prior damage by others) undermined res ipsa loquitur; the Seventh Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to permit an inference of negligence | Smith: stool malfunction (wobble, missing bolts) in a government-controlled room ordinarily indicates negligence | Gov’t: alternative reasonable explanations (Smith fell by accident or caused damage; others could have damaged stool) defeat res ipsa | Res ipsa applies: facts (malfunction, missing bolts, gov’t control/inspection) suffice to permit inference of negligence |
| Whether the government had control of the instrumentality | Smith: Marshals maintain, inspect, and control access to the room and equipment | Gov’t: detainees also use the stool and could have caused the defect, so control is not exclusive | Control need not be exclusive; key is whether defendant had duty to anticipate/guard against the probable cause—here government did |
| Whether contrary evidence defeats the inference at summary judgment | Smith: res ipsa creates an inference that survives and must be weighed by the factfinder against contrary evidence | Gov’t: competing reasonable inferences mean res ipsa should not apply, so summary judgment proper | The inference permits but does not compel a finding; at summary judgment it was improper to disregard Smith’s averments—issues are for the factfinder |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Smith: genuine dispute of material fact exists as to cause and negligence | Gov’t: undisputed facts support summary judgment | Summary judgment reversed and case remanded for trial/proceedings consistent with allowing jury to weigh inference and contrary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. New Forest Home Cemetery, LLC, 856 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in this circuit)
- Blasius v. Angel Auto., Inc., 839 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing res ipsa loquitur principles under Illinois law)
- Aguirre v. Turner Constr. Co., 501 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying Illinois law on circumstantial proof and control element)
- Heastie v. Roberts, 877 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. 2007) (control criterion is flexible; duty to anticipate/guard against probable causes)
- Metz v. Central Ill. Elec. & Gas Co., 207 N.E.2d 305 (Ill. 1965) (formulation of res ipsa loquitur elements under Illinois law)