Sullivan v. Crabtree

Supreme Court of Tennessee · 1953 · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturMotor vehicle accidentsGuest passengerres ipsa loquiturcircumstantial evidencemotor vehicle

Facts

Defendant Crabtree was driving a large trailer-tractor truck owned by Hoover Motor Express Company and permitted plaintiffs' son, Sullivan, to ride in the cab as a guest. While driving from Monteagle back toward Pelham on a paved mountain highway with grades and sharp curves, the truck suddenly swerved from the right side of the road to the left, ran off the shoulder, overturned down a steep embankment, and killed Sullivan. Crabtree testified there was loose gravel and some broken pavement near the curve, and said he lost control when he hit the edge of the curve, but he could not say what actually caused the loss of control. He suggested possibilities including hitting the pavement edge, brake trouble, or some other mechanical problem.

Issue

When a truck suddenly runs off the road and overturns, does res ipsa loquitur require a finding that the driver was negligent as a matter of law when the driver cannot explain the exact cause? Or does the doctrine merely permit the jury to infer negligence and still allow a verdict for the driver if other reasonable inferences remain?

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur means that the circumstances of the occurrence, if unexplained, justify an inference of negligence. In motor vehicle cases, the doctrine may apply where the cause was within the driver's control and the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen if proper care is used. But in the ordinary case the doctrine merely makes a jury case: it permits, rather than compels, an inference of negligence, and where conflicting reasonable inferences remain, the jury chooses between them.

🔒

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 eastern Tennessee, Devin Porter was driving his pickup on a clear afternoon near Knoxville with his neighbor, Lena Ortiz, riding as a social guest. Without colliding with anything and with no obvious external cause, the pickup drifted across the center line, left the roadway, and rolled into a ditch, injuring Lena.

In Lena's negligence suit against Devin, what is the strongest statement of the effect of these facts under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority treated res ipsa loquitur as circumstantial evidence. In an ordinary motor vehicle case, if the vehicle was under the driver's control and the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, the doctrine may apply. But ordinarily it merely permits the jury to infer negligence; it does not compel a finding, create an irrebuttable presumption, or automatically shift the ultimate burden of proof.