## Facts

- Everett D. Shull, Sr., a truck driver, went to The B.F. Goodrich Company’s Woodburn, Indiana plant to pick up a load of tires.
- While on Goodrich’s loading dock, Shull stood on a dockplate used to bridge the gap between the dock and a trailer.
- The dockplate malfunctioned, causing Shull to fall to the floor of his trailer and sustain injuries.
- Shull and his wife, Lapaloma Shull, sued Goodrich for negligence; she sought damages for loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs pursued both direct negligence proof and an evidentiary inference under res ipsa loquitur.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported giving a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur (injury from the occurrence, exclusive control by Goodrich, and an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen absent negligence).
2. Whether refusing the tendered res ipsa loquitur instruction was reversible error where the remaining instructions did not cover its substance.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the judgment entered on the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The tendered res ipsa loquitur instruction was a correct statement of Indiana law.
- The record contained evidence from which a jury could find the elements necessary to permit a res ipsa loquitur inference, including evidence supporting Goodrich’s exclusive control of the dockplate and that the malfunction was the type of event suggesting negligence.
- The substance of the tendered instruction was not otherwise covered by the instructions given.
- The refusal was prejudicial because it withheld from the jury a permissible inference of negligence that could have affected the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Refusal of a tendered instruction is error when: (1) the instruction correctly states the law, (2) evidence supports giving it, and (3) its substance is not covered by other instructions.
- Res ipsa loquitur in Indiana is an evidentiary doctrine permitting (but not requiring) a jury to infer negligence when the plaintiff shows: (1) injury resulting from the occurrence, (2) exclusive control of the instrumentality by the defendant, and (3) an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen absent negligence.
- The court decides as a matter of law whether the evidence allows the doctrine to apply; the jury decides as a matter of fact whether to draw the inference and what weight to give it.
- When there is some evidence supporting the prerequisites for res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff is entitled to have the jury instructed on the doctrine.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to allow a jury to infer negligence from the dockplate’s malfunction under res ipsa loquitur, and the trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction required reversal and a new trial.


Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 477 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)