Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Kendrick v. Pippin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 9, 2011No. 09SC781Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJustice Martinez

I disagree with the majority's analysis and conclusion concerning res ipsa loquitur. In my view, an instruction on res ipsa loquitur should have been given in this case. The majority's opinion summarily concludes that the first element of res ipsa loquitur was not satisfied. I think the facts of this case support the opposite conclusion.

As stated by the majority, in order to receive an instruction on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must introduce evidence which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes each of three elements as being more probable than not: (1) the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ravin v. Gambrell, by and Through EddySupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  2. Stone's Farm Supply, Inc. v. DeaconSupreme Court of Colorado · 1991
  3. Bettner v. BoringSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  4. Lasky v. BergerColorado Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Kendrick v. PippinColorado Court of Appeals · 2009

1 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