Collins v. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc.

Illinois Appellate Court · Torts

TortsRes ipsa loquiturPleadingNegligenceres ipsa loquiturexclusive controlconsecutive controlsection 2-615

Facts

Laura Collins was an elderly, bedridden, nonverbal woman with an amputated leg who was transported by Superior to Alden on June 7, 1999, stayed there until June 12, and was then transported home by Superior. After her return home, her daughter observed pain on movement of Collins's right leg and dehydration; hospital examination revealed a fractured right distal tibia and fibula and dehydration. The complaint alleged these injuries occurred while Collins was under Superior's and/or Alden's control and would not have occurred absent negligence. A section 2-622 physician's report attached to the complaint stated that either Superior and/or Alden negligently moved or handled Collins, failed to diagnose the leg injury, and failed to properly treat it.

Issue

Whether a complaint adequately pleads res ipsa loquitur when it names each defendant who may have caused the plaintiff's injury, but the defendants did not jointly control the injuring instrumentality and instead exercised consecutive control at different times. More specifically, whether such allegations are sufficient to survive a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when the plaintiff pleads and ultimately proves that the occurrence ordinarily does not happen absent negligence and that the defendant had exclusive control of the agency or instrumentality causing the injury. For pleading purposes, where only two defendants had consecutive control over the plaintiff, either could have caused the injury, and both are named in the complaint, the complaint is sufficient to raise the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur even without allegations of joint concurrent control or conclusive proof identifying which defendant created the injurious condition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Detroit, Marisol Vega brought her bedridden father, Ruben Vega, to Lakeshore Transit Medical, which transported him to Willow Bend Recovery Center. Four days later, Lakeshore transported Ruben back home, and Marisol immediately noticed his left wrist was swollen and painful; hospital imaging showed a fresh fracture. Her complaint alleged the fracture occurred while Ruben was under Lakeshore's and/or Willow Bend's control, and an attached physician report stated that either Lakeshore and/or Willow Bend negligently moved or handled him.

If both defendants move to dismiss the res ipsa count for failure to allege joint control, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that, at the pleading stage, a res ipsa claim is sufficient where the occurrence ordinarily would not happen absent negligence, the only two possible tortfeasors are named, and those defendants exercised consecutive control over the plaintiff or injuring instrumentality. Joint concurrent control is not required for pleading purposes, and the plaintiff need not identify which of the two caused the injury. (Derived from Collins v. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc. (n.d.).)