Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Speakman, Judge.
In this case the plaintiff does not rely upon the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. It concedes, as was held in Slack v. Premier-Pabst Corp., 1 Terry (40 Del.) 97, 5 A. 2d 516, that the rule “is not applied except where the transaction was in the exclusive management of the defendant, and all of the elements of the occurrence within his control, and the result is so unaccountable that the defendant’s negligence as a proximate cause of injury is the only fair inference to be drawn from the circumstances. ”
It relies on an exception to the general rule as stated in Cooley on Torts,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. Peerless Glass Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Heckel v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
- Campbell v. WalkerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1910
- Slack v. Premier-Pabst Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1939
- Clark v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
3Cited by10 opinions
- Behringer v. William Gretz Brewing Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1961
- Hunter v. Quality Homes, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1949
- Handy v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1971
- Nacci v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1974
- Kates v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Salisbury, Md.Superior Court of Delaware · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.