189 Cal. App. 4th 1155
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Howe sued IHOP for negligence after falling from a counter stool; trial court granted summary judgment for IHOP for lack of notice.
- Stool base attached to floor with screws; two screws fractured near the head and one below the head; Howe had no knowledge of the cause.
- IHOP conducted regular visual inspections looking at the bottom of stools; inspections reportedly revealed no problems; no prior stool-base failures were reported.
- Howe asserted res ipsa loquitur as a separate basis for liability; the trial court treated it as insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- Court of Appeal held res ipsa loquitur can persist as a basis for inference of negligence even after its presumption vanishes when rebutted.
- Judgment reversed; Howe to recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can res ipsa loquitur serve as a standalone basis for negligence after rebuttal? | Howe argues res ipsa provides a negligence inference independent of the presumption. | IHOP contends once the presumption vanishes, no res ipsa inference remains. | Yes; inference may survive and support negligence. |
| Are the predicate facts sufficient to invoke res ipsa loquitur in this case? | Counter stool was under IHOP's exclusive control and usually would not fail absent negligence. | Regular visual inspections and lack of prior incidents show no negligence. | Yes; predicate facts established sufficient to invoke res ipsa loquitur. |
| What is the effect of Evidence Code section 646 when rebutted by other evidence? | Presumption vanishes but allows an inference of negligence from all facts. | Rebuttal evidence defeats any negligence inference arising from the presumption. | Presumption disappears; jury may still infer negligence from all evidence. |
| May the jury be instructed to infer negligence even if the presumption is rebutted or vanishes? | Instruction may permit an inference of negligence from established facts even without the presumption. | No basis to infer negligence without the presumption. | Instruction appropriate; inference may be drawn where warranted by evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist., 4 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 1993) (res ipsa as circumstantial evidence; presumption and burden shifting considerations)
- Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 (Cal. 1944) (classic res ipsa framework for exclusive control and negligence inference)
- Rose v. Melody Lane, 39 Cal.2d 481 (Cal. 1952) (illustrates presumption-based inference without requiring specific presumption)
- Slater v. Kehoe, 38 Cal.App.3d 819 (Cal. App. 1974) (presumption under Evidence Code 646 and its vanishing upon rebuttal)
- Newing v. Cheatham, 15 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1975) (relationship between res ipsa and burden of proof when presumption vanishes)
- Di Mare v. Cresci, 58 Cal.2d 292 (Cal. 1962) (early articulation of res ipsa as a type of negligence inference)