Larson v. St. Francis Hotel

California Court of Appeal · 1948 · Torts

83 Cal. App. 2d 210 (1948)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsRes ipsa loquiturNegligenceNonsuitexclusive controlfalling objectshotel liabilitymultiple possible causes

Facts

On Y-J Day in 1945, plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk next to the St. Francis Hotel when, after stepping out from under the marquee, she was struck on the head by a heavy overstuffed armchair and knocked unconscious. No witness saw where the chair came from, saw it before it was close to plaintiff, or identified it as hotel property. For purposes of reviewing the nonsuit, the court assumed it was a reasonable inference that the chair came from some portion of the hotel. Plaintiff proved those facts and her injuries, then rested solely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Issue

Did the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to permit an inference of negligence against the hotel owners when plaintiff was struck by a chair apparently coming from the hotel, but the chair was not shown to have been under defendants' exclusive control and the accident could as likely have been caused by a guest or other person?

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur applies only when the plaintiff shows an accident, that the thing causing the injury was at the time and before then under the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and that the accident is of a kind that ordinarily would not happen if the defendant used ordinary care. The doctrine does not apply where responsibility is divided or the unexplained accident may have resulted from one of several causes, some of which are not attributable to the defendant.

🔒

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 Seattle, Nora Kim was walking past the Bayside Crest Apartments when a ceramic planter fell from an upper-floor balcony and struck her shoulder. Nora proved only that the planter appeared to come from the building and that tenants regularly kept movable items on their balconies.

Can Nora most likely rely on res ipsa loquitur against the apartment owner?

Explanation. Res ipsa loquitur requires that the instrumentality causing injury be under the defendant's exclusive control and that the event ordinarily would not occur if the defendant used ordinary care. Where tenants have at least partial control over movable objects, responsibility is divided, and the accident may be attributable to someone other than the owner. Under the majority's reasoning, the doctrine does not apply merely because the object likely came from the defendant's premises.