Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Got in a wreck tonight
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1399214" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p><em>Res ipsa loquitur</em> doctrine.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74021" target="_blank">Uniform Jury Instructions - Civil - 9.13</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>In addition to the rules which have been stated with respect to negligence, there are situations in which a jury may, but is not required to, find negligence from the mere fact that the accident occurred.</p><p></p><p>[Plaintiff] contends that this case involves such a situation, and consequently has the burden of proving each of the two following propositions:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">1. That the injury was caused by [(name of the instrumentality)/(description of the act or omission)] which [was/(has been)] under the exclusive control and management of [Defendant].</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">2. That the event causing the injury to [Plaintiff] was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of the person [(in control of the instrumentality)/(responsible for the act or omission)].</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>If you find that each of these propositions is more probably true than not true, then you are permitted, but not required, to find that [Defendant] was negligent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1399214, member: 5151"] [I]Res ipsa loquitur[/I] doctrine. [URL="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74021"]Uniform Jury Instructions - Civil - 9.13[/URL] In addition to the rules which have been stated with respect to negligence, there are situations in which a jury may, but is not required to, find negligence from the mere fact that the accident occurred. [Plaintiff] contends that this case involves such a situation, and consequently has the burden of proving each of the two following propositions: [INDENT]1. That the injury was caused by [(name of the instrumentality)/(description of the act or omission)] which [was/(has been)] under the exclusive control and management of [Defendant]. 2. That the event causing the injury to [Plaintiff] was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence on the part of the person [(in control of the instrumentality)/(responsible for the act or omission)]. [/INDENT] If you find that each of these propositions is more probably true than not true, then you are permitted, but not required, to find that [Defendant] was negligent. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Got in a wreck tonight
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
