Sample Questions #3

1. A statute requires all vessels traveling on the Great Lakes to provide lifeboats.  One of Winston Steamship Company’s boats is sent out of port without a lifeboat.  Perry, a sailor, falls overboard in a storm so heavy that had there been a lifeboat it could not have been launched.  Perry drowns.  Is Winston liable to Perry’s estate?  Please discuss. 
2. Escola, a waitress, was injured when a bottle of Coca-Cola exploded in her hand while she was putting it into the restaurant’s cooler.  The bottle came from a shipment that had remained under the counter for thirty-six hours, after being delivered by the bottling company.  The bottler had subjected the bottle to the method of testing for defects commonly used in the industry, and there is no evidence that Escola or anyone else did anything to damage the bottle between its delivery and the explosion.  Escola brought an action against the bottler for damages.  Because she is unable to show any specific acts of negligence on its part, she seeks to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Should she be able to recover on this theory?  Please explain.
3. Nathan is run over by a car and left lying in the street.  Sam, seeing Nathan’s helpless state, places him in his car for the purpose of taking him to the hospital. Sam drives negligently into a ditch, causing additional injury to Nathan.  Is Sam liable to Nathan?  Please discuss.

ANSWERS:

Question 1.  The fact situation tells us that there is a law which requires all vessels sailing on the Great Lakes to have lifeboats on board.  This law defines one of the duties boats sailing on the Great Lakes must follow.  This duty was breached when one of Winston Steamship Company’s ships set sail without the required lifeboats.   This breach of duty was not, however, the cause of Perry’s death.  This is because the fact situation tells us that life boats simply could not have been launched due to the severity of the storm.  Even if the ship carried lifeboats, it would not have made a difference.  Lacking the required causation, there is no liability.

Question 2. Res ipsa loquitur is a technique which can be used by a plaintiff to create an inference of negligent behavior in situations where it is difficult to explain how something took place.  In order for Escola to use this technique, she must be able to demonstrate three things:

• Negligence required.  The accident which took place could not have taken place in the absence of negligence.  This element is satisfied because a bottle of Coca Cola should never have exploded simply by the act of moving it from one location in the restaurant to the refrigerator.  The bottle could only have exploded due to negligence in the construction of the bottle, negligence in placing the Coca Cola within the bottle, negligence in the formulation of the Coca Cola, etc. 

• The plaintiff most likely is responsible for the negligence.  This element is satisfied because the fact situation tells us that the defendant, Coca Cola Co. created the soft drink, filled and capped the bottle, and delivered it.  It may also have been responsible for making the bottle as well.  This degree of control by the defendant shows that the act of negligence must have taken place while the bottle was under the defendant’s supervision and control.  (some of the students were misled by the fact that industry standards were observed in the manufacture of the bottles, and concluded that negligence may not have taken place.  This may simply be a case where the industry standard was insufficient or applied incorrectly.)   

• The defendant did not contribute to her injury.  This element is satisfied because the fact situation tells us the bottles were stored under the counter, and the only thing Escola did was to transfer the bottle from the place of storage to the refrigerator. What she did could not have contributed to the bottle exploding.

Conclusion:  All three elements necessary to use res ipsa loquitur have been shown.

Question 3.  The fact situation for this question does not indicate any type of relationship between Sam and Nathan which would require Sam to come to Nathan’s aid.  But once Sam made the decision to help Nathan, he was under a legal duty to act in a reasonable manner.  The fact situation indicated that Sam drove in a negligent manner while he was taking Nathan to the hospital, and this resulted in an accident which caused further injury to Nathan.  The act of driving in a negligent manner breached Sam’s duty, and this was the cause of Nathan’s additional injury.  When someone drives in a negligent manner, it is entirely foreseeable that an accident in which others might be injured could take place.  There is, therefore, proximate cause to hold Sam responsible.