McDougald v. Perry

Supreme Court of Florida · 1998 · Torts

716 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1998)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsres ipsa loquiturnegligenceevidenceinference of negligenceexclusive controlcommon experiencewayward wheel

Facts

McDougald was driving behind a tractor-trailer driven by Perry and leased by Perry's employer, C & S Chemical, when a 130-pound spare tire fell from a cradle underneath the trailer after the truck crossed railroad tracks. The trailer's rear tires ran over the spare, causing it to bounce into the air and crash through McDougald's windshield. The spare was held in an angled cradle by its own weight and also secured by a chain attached to the trailer body with a nut and bolt rather than the original latch device. Perry had inspected the trailer before the trip, but after the accident he observed the chain dragging and believed a link had stretched and slipped from the securing nut.

Issue

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to permit an inference of negligence when a spare tire escaped from underneath respondents' truck and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. More specifically, the question was whether this type of accident is one that, as a matter of common experience, ordinarily would not occur absent negligence by the person in control of the instrumentality.

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits, but does not compel, an inference of negligence when the plaintiff shows that the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant and that the accident is one that would not, in the ordinary course of events, have occurred without negligence by the person in control. The required showing may rest on common experience and general knowledge; the plaintiff need not eliminate with certainty all other possible causes. The doctrine remains limited to rare instances, but it applies when the facts of the accident themselves establish that, but for a failure of reasonable care by the person controlling the instrumentality, the accident would not have occurred.

🔒

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 Toledo, Ohio, Nina Alvarez was driving behind a box truck owned by Lakefront Parcel Fleet when a metal storage rack bolted to the truck's exterior suddenly detached, flew backward, and smashed through Nina's windshield. The rack and its fasteners were removed by the company after the crash, and Nina has no expert testimony about truck equipment design.

If Nina sues Lakefront Parcel Fleet for negligence and requests a res ipsa loquitur instruction, what is the best argument for giving the instruction?

Explanation. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence permitting, but not compelling, an inference of negligence when the instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control and the accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence. Under the majority opinion, common experience and general knowledge can supply that conclusion; expert testimony is not required when laypersons can infer that the object ordinarily would have stayed attached absent a failure of reasonable care.