Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturPremises liabilityres ipsa loquiturstorekeeper dutybusiness visitorpremises liability

Facts

Plaintiff was trying on shoes in defendant's leased shoe department inside Kaufman's department store. She sat in an end chair near a display table whose top shelf held a tripod-based shoe stand draped with a scarf and displaying shoes. When plaintiff sat back down after trying on shoes, the chair apparently bumped the display table, causing the stand above her chair to fall and strike her head, though the identical stand above the opposite end chair did not fall. Plaintiff claimed the accident itself warranted application of res ipsa loquitur.

Issue

Whether, under these circumstances, the trial court should have instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and whether plaintiff was entitled to have liability established on that basis. More specifically, the question was whether the falling display stand was the kind of occurrence that permitted an inference of negligence without proof of the specific negligent condition.

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur is a narrow doctrine justified by necessity and applies only when the instrumentality's management and control are such that defendant has superior knowledge or means of explanation, while plaintiff is not in a position to show the particular circumstances causing the injury. If the circumstances do not indicate superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation on the part of defendant, or if plaintiff has equal or available means to establish the specific negligence, the doctrine cannot be invoked. In the storekeeper-business visitor relationship, the storekeeper must exercise reasonable care to protect against known dangers and those discoverable by reasonable care, but is not an insurer, and the mere happening of an accident raises no presumption of negligence absent proper res ipsa circumstances.

🔒

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.

At a home-goods store in Denver, Lena Ortiz sat in a customer chair beside a freestanding lamp display. As she shifted backward, the chair brushed the display base, and a lamp from the top tier fell and injured her shoulder. Afterward, Lena photographed the display and found witnesses willing to testify that the base rocked noticeably when lightly touched.

If Lena sues the store and seeks a res ipsa loquitur instruction based solely on the fact that the lamp fell, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Res ipsa loquitur is limited to situations where the defendant has superior knowledge or means of explanation and the plaintiff is not in a position to show the particular circumstances causing the injury. Here, Lena had available means to prove concrete negligence directly, including evidence that the display base rocked when lightly touched. Under the majority rule, the mere happening of the accident does not itself create a presumption of negligence, and lack of foreseeability to the plaintiff is not the test. (Derived from Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc. (n.d.).)