In Morejun v. Rais Constr. Co., the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed that only in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment or a directed verdict. The Court explained that such case would happen when the plaintiff's circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant's response is so weak that the inference of the defendant's negligence is inescapable.
As New York Civil Law discussed at the end of last year (see post), this appeal involved an injured of the plaintiff's decedent, who was delivering materials to a private residence that was undergoing renovation. Building materials fell from the roof of the house and struck the decedent's head. The plaintiff commenced a negligence action against the general contractor and its principals. The Appellate Division, Second Department (see decision) reversed Supreme Court's grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for common-law negligence pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Judge Rosenblatt authored the decision for the Court of Appeals and provided an excellent historical analysis of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Above and beyond the actual holding, the decision provides an important discussion of circumstantial evidence and the difference between an inference and a presumption. Those familiar with Judge Rosenblatt's decisions will appreciate the historical perspective he frequently injects into his opinions (see for example: Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City).
For more analysis about this appeal, please see Nicole Black's post at Sui Generis.
Comments