## Facts

- Fabio Pardo allegedly suffered a head injury when a roll of roofing material fell from the roof of a homeowner’s residence where Rais Construction Company had been performing roofing work.
- Pardo’s brother and sister-in-law testified that Rais engaged Pardo to deliver items to the residence on December 26, 1998, and that a roofing roll fell and struck him.
- The witnesses could not identify the person who answered the door at the residence and did not report an accident at the time.
- Pardo did not seek medical treatment until late February 1999.
- Rais and the homeowner testified that roofing work had stopped several days earlier and that no roofing materials were left on the roof.
- Rais also testified that Pardo was not working for Rais that day and had been discharged weeks earlier due to severe headaches creating safety risks.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur circumstantial proof can ever justify summary judgment for a plaintiff.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s proof here established res ipsa loquitur so conclusively that summary judgment on liability against Rais was proper.

## Decision

- The court held that res ipsa loquitur is not categorically barred as a basis for plaintiff summary judgment, but such relief should be rare.
- The court held summary judgment for the plaintiff was improper on this record because material factual disputes remained.
- The court affirmed the intermediate appellate order that reversed the plaintiff’s summary judgment award and left liability issues for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur permits, but does not require, an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence.
- To invoke res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff generally must show: (1) the event ordinarily does not occur without negligence, (2) the instrumentality was within defendant’s exclusive control, and (3) the injury was not due to plaintiff’s voluntary act or contribution.
- Res ipsa loquitur does not alter the summary judgment standard; plaintiff must show circumstantial proof so strong that no rational factfinder could reject the negligence inference, and defendant must fail to raise a triable factual issue.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where resolution depends on credibility determinations or disputed facts concerning the occurrence of the event, causation, or exclusive control.

## Conclusion

Res ipsa loquitur may, in exceptional cases, support summary judgment for a plaintiff, but where the evidence is sharply conflicting on whether the accident occurred and whether the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality, liability must be decided by the factfinder rather than as a matter of law.


Morejon v. Rais Constr. Co., 7 N.Y.3d 203, 851 N.E.2d 1143 (N.Y. 2006)