2011 Ark. App. 542 - Johnson v. M.S. Development Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2020
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Clark · Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fort Smith v. Hicks · Fleming v. Wal-Mart, Inc. · 88 Ark. App. 284 - Marx v. Huron Little Rock · Nichols v. International Paper Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where the cause is connected with an instrumentality in the exclusive control of a defendant. Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., 2010 Ark. 466, at 6 , 369 S.W.3d 717, 720 . It applies where the evidence of the true cause is available to the defendant but not to the plaintiff. Id. The doctrine, when applicable, allows the jury to infer [^negligence from the plaintiffs evidence of circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Id. In the words of Mr. Justice Holmes, res ipsa loquitur is “merely a short way of saying that, so far as the court can see, the jury, from their experience as men of the world, may be warranted in thinking that an accident of this particular Rind commonly does not happen except in consequence of negligence, and that therefore there is a presumption of fact, in the absence of explanation or other evidence which the jury believe, that it happened in consequence of negligence in this case.” (Citation omitted). This is the kind of inference that jurors commonly are allowed to make from circumstantial evidence, the only difference being that, when res ipsa loquitur applies, the circumstantial evidence from which the inference is drawn is the fact of the injury itself, plus the few obvious facts which surround the injury but do not clearly explain how it happened. Marx v. Huron Little Rock, 88 Ark.App. 284, 292 , 198 S.W.3d 127, 133 (2004) (citing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hicks, 21”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.