Housel

The following statement is taken from the opinion of the district court of appeal of the second district, filed in this ease:

The principal question in this case is whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable under the circumstances. This question arises in view of certain instructions to the jury-given by the trial court, and the refusal of the court to give certain other instructions requested by plaintiffs.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is thus stated in section 59 of Shearman & Redfield on the Law of Negligence (6th ed.), viz.: “When a thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from a want of care.” This doctrine has been applied in a long line of cases in this state involving injuries to a passenger while being transported by a common carrier. The effect of the doctrine when applied to such cases, is that proof of the injury to the passenger while he was being carried as such creates a prima…