• 2001 - Res Ipsa Loquitur
  • C-80.54
    • Evidence
    • Evidence
    • Negligence
    • Presumptions
    • Torts
  • If a thing 1) proximately causes injury to the Plaintiff, 2) is under the exclusive control of the Defendant, and 3) is involved in an accident that does not ordinarily occur without negligence on the part of the Defendant, you may not need to infer that the Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the control of the thing, thus giving rise to liability of the Defendant to the Plaintiff [,diminished by any fault of the Plaintiff]. Whether negligence should be inferred in such a situation is for you to determine under all of the evidence and these instructions.
    • Bergeley v. Mann's, 99 NW2d 849 (ND 1959)
    • Gallagher v. Kermott, 56 NW 176 (ND 1893)
    • Schmidt v. Stone, 194 NW 917 (ND 1923)
    • Victory Park Apartments, Inc. v. Axelson, 367 NW2d 155 (ND 1985)
    • Wasem v. Laskowski, 274 NW2d 219 (ND 1979)
  • Notes: The bracketed language should be given only if the defenses are pleaded and proved.