## Facts

- Lucinda Shutt entered a retail shoe department operated by Wohl Shoe Company on the ground floor of a department store owned by Kaufman’s, Inc.
- A salesperson invited Shutt to sit in one of three customer chairs placed a few inches from a display table.
- The display included shoe stands placed on an upper shelf of the table.
- As Shutt sat down, her chair bumped the display table, causing a shoe stand to topple from the shelf.
- The falling shoe stand struck Shutt on the head, and she claimed personal injuries.
- Shutt sued Kaufman’s, Inc. and Wohl Shoe Company for negligence.
- At the close of the evidence, the trial court dismissed Kaufman’s, Inc. from the case on defendants’ motion, which Shutt joined; the case proceeded to the jury against Wohl Shoe Company only.
- The trial court instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur; the jury returned a verdict for Wohl Shoe Company, and the court denied Shutt’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence justified instructing the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
2. Whether, if res ipsa loquitur applied, the trial court was required to direct a verdict for Shutt on liability or otherwise instruct the jury in a manner that compelled a finding of negligence.
3. Whether alleged errors in the res ipsa loquitur instructions warranted a new trial.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
- The court held the trial court properly determined that res ipsa loquitur was applicable and properly instructed the jury on the doctrine.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur in Colorado permits, but does not require, an inference of negligence; it does not mandate a directed verdict for the plaintiff.
- Because the jury was entitled to reject the inference and the record supported the defense verdict, denial of a new trial was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule allowing a factfinder to infer negligence from the occurrence when the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the instrumentality was within the defendant’s responsibility or control.
- In Colorado, res ipsa loquitur does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion and does not compel a finding of negligence; the inference may be accepted or rejected by the jury.
- Even when res ipsa loquitur applies, a court is not required to direct a verdict for the plaintiff; liability remains a jury question when the defendant offers evidence or circumstances supporting a non-negligent explanation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a falling shoe-display stand could support a res ipsa loquitur instruction because such an occurrence ordinarily suggests negligence under the store’s control, but the doctrine only permits an inference; it does not require a plaintiff’s verdict, and the jury’s defense verdict was properly left undisturbed.


Shutt v. Kaufman's, Inc., 165 Colo. 175, 438 P.2d 501 (Colo. 1968)