Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fowler v. Seaton

California Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1964No. L. A. 27865Published

1Dissent

SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.

On the undisputed facts of this record it is my opinion that plaintiff had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to justify relieving her of all burden of *691proof on the issue of negligence by application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Even that “simple, understandable rule of circumstantial evidence” (Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [1] [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R 1258]) must be founded on proof rather than conjecture: as said in Nelson v. Douglas Pedlow, Inc. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 780, 784 [6] [279 P.2d 823], “The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is not…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Ybarra v. SpangardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Siverson v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Lehmuth v. Long Beach Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Pirkle v. Oakdale Union Grammar School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

17 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