Gorden v. Goldberg

California Court of Appeal Jan 17, 1935 No. Civ. 9042Published

Before: Willis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the cause of the accident was fully explained by the evidence, and it affirmed the trial court's findings regarding the absence of negligence.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the first cause of action to defeat a nonsuit.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding the second cause of action.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The inference of negligence created by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can arise only in the absence of explanation of the cause of the accident”

“Herein appellants’ evidence, adduced prior to motion for nonsuit, fully explained the cause of the globe falling, namely, its dislodgement by the flight of the escaped chicken.”

“Under the established rule we cannot disturb the trial court’s finding that respondents were not negligent in respect to the custody, escape or flight of the chicken.”

WILLIS, J.,

pro

tem.

Respondents were merchants conducting a poultry market in Los Angeles. While appellant Frieda Gorden, as a customer, was in respondents’ place of business purchasing a chicken, standing near an “egg house” having a roof some 8 by 8 feet in dimension and 8 feet above the floor, and on which a glass light globe or shade was, and for a long time had been placed, a live chicken, escaping from one of the coops in the store, flew upon the roof or top of the egg house, lighting on the globe, dislodging or pushing it from its position and causing it to fall, striking Mrs. Gorden on her nose and causing the injuries complained of. In appellants’ first cause of action set forth in their complaint, relief was sought on the basis of allegations of negligence of respondents in placing and leaving situate on the edge of a shelf in the store the light globe so that it would slip and fall, with knowledge of its dangerous position. In the second cause of action the basis of relief was the alleged negligence of respondents in allowing a chicken to remain outside a coop, knowing it was the habit of chickens to fly and jump when alarmed, and that as a result of such negligence the chicken flew against the light globe on the roof or top of the egg house, causing it to fall and injure Mrs. Gorden.

At the close of plaintiffs’ case nonsuit was granted as to the first cause of action and denied as to the second cause. Appeal is taken from the judgment entered on the order granting nonsuit and from the judgment entered on the findings and conclusions as to thé second cause after trial

[661]

thereof on the merits. Appellants make two contentions: (1) That the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur

was applicable to the first cause, and made a

prima facie

case for appellants sufficient to overcome the motion for nonsuit; (2) that the findings as to the second cause are not supported by the evidence and that the judgment entered thereon is contrary to the evidence.

The inference of negligence created by the doctrine of

Gorden v. Goldberg

AI Brief

WILLIS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief