## Facts

- Edward Ristau was employed by E. Frank Coe Company.
- Ristau was pushing products and materials in a cart along a track on the employer’s premises.
- The track was supported by an approximately 18-foot trestle furnished and maintained by the employer for this work.
- The trestle had been used in the same ordinary way for about three years.
- While Ristau was using it in the usual manner, the trestle suddenly broke and collapsed, causing him injury.
- At trial, Ristau did not attempt to identify or prove any specific defect or particular negligent act that caused the collapse.
- Ristau rested his case on the occurrence itself, relying on res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”).
- The trial court granted a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s proof, and judgment was entered for the employer.
- Ristau appealed from the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether proof that an employer-provided trestle, about three years old, collapsed during ordinary use—without proof of a specific defect or negligent act—permits an inference of employer negligence under res ipsa loquitur sufficient to defeat a nonsuit and require submission to the jury.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of nonsuit.
- The court held that res ipsa loquitur was applicable on these facts and that the nonsuit was error.
- The court ordered a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur permits, but does not compel, an inference of negligence when the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen unless someone was negligent and the circumstances point to the defendant as the likely responsible party.
- The doctrine is especially suited to cases where the plaintiff cannot show the specific cause of the failure and has “nothing but the bare happening of the accident”; it supplies an evidentiary basis to avoid a nonsuit.
- When additional evidence already shows negligence, res ipsa loquitur is unnecessary; its function is to allow the case to reach the jury when direct proof of the negligent act or defect is not available to the plaintiff.
- The doctrine does not apply where the occurrence is equally consistent with causes not attributable to the defendant—such as acts or omissions of third parties—because in that situation the cause remains a matter of conjecture.
- The unexplained collapse of a work structure furnished for employee use (comparable to collapses of scaffolds, floors, or other places to work) while being used in the ordinary way can justify submitting negligence to the jury under res ipsa loquitur.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff showed that a trestle supplied by the employer and used in the ordinary way for its intended purpose suddenly collapsed after only about three years of service, and because the case presented the kind of occurrence that ordinarily does not happen without negligence attributable to the party responsible for the structure, the plaintiff was entitled to rely on res ipsa loquitur; the trial court therefore erred in granting a nonsuit, and a new trial was required.


Ristau v. E. Frank Coe Co., 120 A.D. 478 (1907)