Facts
- George Foltis, Inc. operated a restaurant at West 36th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan.
- On April 10, 1938, a 12-inch municipal water main in Eighth Avenue ruptured near 36th Street, releasing water that seeped into and damaged the restaurant.
- The rupture was described as a longitudinal split in the flange or hub portion of the pipe.
- The water main had been installed in 1929; the City offered evidence that the pipe was new, conformed to specifications, and was factory pressure-tested and tested again before installation, with testimony describing installation methods.
- Neither party introduced proof identifying the specific cause of the rupture.
- Plaintiff relied on res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the occurrence, and also emphasized alleged delay or failure by the City to shut off the water after notice of the break.
Issues
- Whether res ipsa loquitur, without proof of a specific negligent act, entitled plaintiff to a directed verdict despite the jury’s express findings of no negligence.
- Whether res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof or merely permits the factfinder to infer negligence.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for plaintiff.
- Res ipsa loquitur allows, but does not require, an inference of negligence and does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion from plaintiff.
- The trial court erred by directing a verdict for plaintiff after the jury answered special questions finding no negligence in construction, maintenance, or response to the break.
- The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court’s res ipsa loquitur framework.
Legal Principles
- Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that may permit an inference of negligence when the instrumentality is within defendant’s control and the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence.
- The doctrine may require a defendant to come forward with explanatory evidence, but it does not shift the ultimate burden of proving negligence.
- In a jury trial, whether to draw the res ipsa inference—after weighing all proof, including defendant’s explanation—is for the jury, and a directed verdict is improper if a reasonable jury could reject negligence.
Conclusion
The court held that a water main rupture could support a permissible inference of negligence, but res ipsa loquitur did not entitle the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law; the jury’s findings of no negligence could not be set aside merely because the accident occurred.