Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines

Supreme Court of California · 1961 · Torts

Tortscommon carrierbus passengerres ipsa loquiturinference of negligenceburden of proofcontributory negligencejury instructions

Facts

Plaintiff claimed that while she was properly entering defendants' bus with the doors open, the doors suddenly closed on her right hand and left foot, the bus started, dragged her, and threw her to the pavement. Defendants contended that plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident because she ran into the side of the bus or tried to board after the doors had nearly closed. The evidence supported plaintiff's version, and defendants did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Plaintiff sustained severe, painful, permanent injuries to her left foot and leg, underwent numerous operations and lengthy hospitalization, and continued to suffer deformity, disability, drainage, and lifelong pain risk.

Issue

Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur and by other rulings on liability, and whether the jury's damages award was so excessive as a matter of law that it required reversal. The court also considered whether defendants could challenge plaintiff's mathematical argument for pain and suffering when no objection was made at trial.

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur may apply even if the defendant does not have superior knowledge of the accident and even if the plaintiff participated in the events leading to it, so long as there is evidence that plaintiff's negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the accident. Under California law, the res ipsa inference is evidence, and to prevail a defendant must rebut it with evidence of at least equal convincing force; however, the ultimate burden is not improperly shifted when the instruction is read as a whole. An appellate court may set aside a damages award as excessive only when it is so grossly disproportionate that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption, with all presumptions favoring the judgment and the trial court's denial of a new trial. Error in counsel's damages argument is waived if no timely objection, request for admonition, or claim of misconduct is made.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Nina Patel stepped onto the first stair of a city shuttle operated by Rivergate Transit when the driver had opened the boarding doors at a designated stop. The doors abruptly clamped on her coat sleeve and the shuttle lurched forward, knocking her to the curb. Several bystanders saw the event, and the transit company argues res ipsa loquitur is unavailable because the rider and the driver had equal opportunity to observe what happened.

Should the court give a res ipsa loquitur instruction?

Explanation. The majority held that superior knowledge by the defendant is not required for res ipsa loquitur. The existence of eyewitnesses or the plaintiff's own observations does not bar the doctrine on that ground. If the other conditions for the inference are supported, the instruction is proper.