Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins

Supreme Court of Mississippi · 1939 · Constitutional Law

TortsNegligenceCausationDamagesExpert Testimonynegligenceproximate causecausation

Facts

A hotel guest was assigned a room with a broken transom, and the hotel clerk was told about the condition shortly after check-in. About two hours later, the plaintiff came to the guest's room for a business conference, and when he opened the door normally to leave, the broken transom glass fell and struck his head, causing three wounds. The evidence supported that the defective condition had existed long enough to charge the hotel with notice and that the fall of the glass was reasonably foreseeable. Months later, a skin cancer developed at the site of one wound, and the plaintiff sought damages on the theory that the injury caused the cancer.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the claim that the plaintiff's later skin cancer was caused by the head injury from the falling glass. Also, whether the hotel's liability for the initial physical injury was supported by the evidence.

Rule

A plaintiff must prove that the complained-of injury was caused by the defendant's negligence; proof that a result was merely possible is not substantial evidence and will not sustain a verdict. When the causal issue lies wholly beyond the common experience and observation of laypersons, undisputed testimony of reputable medical specialists must be accepted by court and jury.

🔒

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 Tulsa, Nora Patel slipped on a wet stairwell in an office building maintained by Red Clay Property Services and bruised her shoulder. Eleven months later she was diagnosed with a rare nerve disorder in that arm, and her only neurologist testified that the fall could have triggered the disorder but could not say it probably did.

May the jury award damages for the nerve disorder against Red Clay Property Services?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that possibilities will not sustain a verdict. Where the causal issue is wholly beyond common experience, the plaintiff must offer substantial expert proof of causation, not merely testimony that the event could have caused the condition. A jury may not rest on post hoc reasoning alone.