Guthrie v. Powell

Supreme Court of Kansas · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturpersonal injurydemurrerpetitionexclusive controlinvitee

Facts

Defendants were partners operating the Winfield Sales Company, a community sale business open to the public. Plaintiff attended the sale as an invitee and was seated on the main floor when debris fell from the ceiling and a six-hundred-pound steer fell through the ceiling onto her, causing serious injuries. The amended petition alleged that the premises, the livestock, and the steer were solely and exclusively under defendants' management, care, possession, and control. Plaintiff alleged she did not know the specific negligent acts but claimed the occurrence would not have happened except for negligence by defendants, their agents, servants, or employees.

Issue

Did the amended petition allege sufficient facts to permit plaintiff to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without pleading specific acts of negligence? Put differently, did the petition state a cause of action sufficient to withstand defendants' demurrers?

Rule

A plaintiff may proceed under res ipsa loquitur without alleging specific negligent acts when the petition alleges facts and circumstances showing an occurrence that would not ordinarily have taken place except for some negligence of the defendants, while the instrumentality or conditions causing the injury were under the defendants' sole and exclusive management, care, possession, and control.

🔒

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 Topeka, Nadia Flores attended a public auction operated by Prairie Gate Exchange, a partnership that invited local residents to bid on farm equipment and animals. While she sat in a customer waiting area below an enclosed catwalk, a heavy crate stored on the upper level crashed through the ceiling and struck her; her complaint alleges the building and crate were solely under the partnership's management, care, possession, and control, but she cannot identify the precise negligent act.

Prairie Gate Exchange files a demurrer arguing Nadia failed to plead any specific negligent conduct. How should the court rule under the majority opinion's approach?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats the key question as whether the petition alleges facts showing an unusual occurrence that would not ordinarily happen except for negligence, while the instrumentality and premises were under defendants' sole and exclusive management, care, possession, and control. If so, specific negligent acts need not be pleaded to withstand a demurrer. (Derived from Guthrie v. Powell (n.d.).)