Facts
- Lawrence D. McDougald drove behind a tractor-trailer on U.S. Highway 60 West in Bartow, Florida.
- Henry D. Perry drove the tractor-trailer, which C & S Chemical, Inc. leased from Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.
- As the truck crossed railroad tracks, a 130-pound spare tire fell from an angled cradle underneath the trailer.
- The trailer’s rear wheels ran over the tire, causing it to bounce into the air and strike McDougald’s windshield.
- The spare tire was held in the cradle by its weight and a chain wrapped around it; the chain had one-inch links and was attached to the trailer with a nut and bolt rather than the original latch device.
- Perry testified he performed a pretrip inspection but did not check every chain link.
- After the incident, Perry observed the chain dragging and believed a link stretched and slipped from the nut; the chain was not available at trial.
Issues
- Whether res ipsa loquitur applies where a spare tire escapes from a moving tractor-trailer and strikes a following vehicle, permitting an inference of negligence without proof of a specific negligent act.
Decision
- The Florida Supreme Court held res ipsa loquitur applied to the incident.
- The court quashed the Second District’s decision and approved the approach taken by the Fifth District in a similar detached-tire case.
- The case was remanded with directions to reinstate the trial court’s verdict for McDougald.
Legal Principles
- Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine permitting, but not compelling, an inference of negligence when direct proof is unavailable.
- The doctrine applies when (1) the injury-causing instrumentality was under the defendant’s exclusive control, and (2) the event is of a type that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence.
- “Exclusive control” is satisfied when the defendant had responsibility for the instrumentality and its securing mechanism, even if deterioration or failure may have developed over time.
- The plaintiff need not eliminate all other possible causes with certainty; the presence of alternative explanations does not bar the inference if negligence is the more probable explanation based on common experience.
- The inference does not shift the burden of proof; it supplies circumstantial proof from which the jury may find negligence.
Conclusion
The court concluded that a heavy spare tire ordinarily remains secured to a truck absent a failure of reasonable care by those responsible for the tire and its securing device, so the jury could infer negligence under res ipsa loquitur and the plaintiff’s verdict was reinstated.