Legal Opinion

Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1970No. 69-602PublishedCited by 90 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeach, J.

The question presented is whether the trial court erred in refusing to apply the rule of res ipsa loquitur at the close of plaintiff’s case.

It is well established by earlier decisions of this court that res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which permits the trier of fact to infer negligence on the part of the defendant from the circumstances surrounding the injury to plaintiff. (See Fink v. New York Central Rd. Co. [1944], 144 Ohio St. 1, for a discussion of the concept of res ipsa loquitur generally, and see Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center [1949], 151 Ohio St. 503, for a review of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Glowacki v. North Western Ohio Ry. & Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Fink v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Soltz v. Colony Recreation CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Ornella v. RobertsonOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Renneckar v. Canton Terminal Restaurant, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1947

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by90 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Pacher v. Invisible Fence of DaytonOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. Becker v. Lake County Memorial Hospital WestOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. V & M STAR STEEL v. Centimark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Lauren Ross v. American Red CrossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014

85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API