Thursday, September 21, 2017 Any

SULLIVAN v. CRABTREE
Ct. of App of TN, 1953
V & J //AFF

Facts
  sued for damages for the death of their adult son – ’s adult son a guest in a motor
tractor-trailer truck that the  was driving
 On a dry clear midafternoon, as  was driving down a mountain that had a number of
moderate grade and pretty sharp curves,  was approaching one of those sharp curves
when another truck overtook and passed  in which thereafter ’s truck swerved from the
right side to the left, ran off the left shoulder of the highway, and overturned down a
steep embankment (crushing  to death)
  argues circuit error that  was guilty as a matter of law of negligence causing the death
sued for
Holding
 Where there is more than one permissible inference that can be reasonably drawn from
evidence, (satisfying the burden of production) the jury decided the weight or strength of
such reasonable evidence upon the particular facts of the case, which in this case  is not
liable. (jury could not find that more likely than not
Reasoning
 It is not a matter of law, it warrants an inference of negligence in which the jury must be
convinced that, more likely than not,  breached the duty to use ordinary care for the
safety of the  - did  directly cause the loss of control of the tractor-trailer (based on the
facts)? – up to the jury to decide
“The only generalization that can be safely made” under res ipsa loquitur, is that it
“affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by . The weight or strength of
such reasonable evidence will necessarily depend on …” the inference of negligence based
on the particular facts.
o Weight/strength varies from practical certainty to reasonable probability in
another – duty of jury to decide in preference to other permissible or reasonable
inferences
 In this case,  gave multiple reasonable permissible inferences
  could not prove that the tractor-trailer was, at the time of the accident and prior thereto,
under exclusive control and management of  when it is reasonably POSSIBLE and
UNDISSPUTED that the brakes of the truck gave away or that some part of the control
mechanism of the truck broke that may have cause the accident to be unavoidable
Thursday, September 21, 2017 Any

(Note 5 p.271) Effect of Pleading Specific Acts of Negligence – 4 positions have been taken by
courts as to whether , by ’s specific pleading of negligence, can rely on res ipsa loquitur
1.  cannot rely on it at all
2.  may take advantage of res ipsa loquitur to the extent that the inference of
negligence supports allegations
3.  may rely on res ipsa loquitur only if specific pleading is accompanied by general
allegation of negligence
4. that it is available regardless to the form of the pleading