Daniel Ozark, Individually and as Next Friend for Dwain Ozark, a Minor v. Wichita Manor, Incorporated, and City of Wichita Falls, Texas
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Per curiam
Specific acts complained of or evidence establishing the likely existence of them do not prevent the case being one for application of res ipsa loquitur. Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Elliott, 125 Tex. 248, 81 S.W.2d 659, cited recently with approval Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 143 Tex. 272, 183 S.W.2d 968, 969, 160 A.L.R. 1445. In a case calling for res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff “* * * ought not to be penalized by the loss of the presumption because he has been willing to go forward and do the best he can to prove specific acts of negligence. On the contrary he ought to be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- San Juan Light & Transit Co. v. RequenaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Honea, by Next Friend v. Coca Cola Bot. Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1944
- Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1935
- Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Walter N. Buckles, Jr., and Silas R. StanleyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ford Motor Company v. Marvin R. MathisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Lorenc v. Chemirad Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Lonnie A. Dement v. Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corporation, E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Lonnie A. DementCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- George S. Weigand v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., Owner and Operator of the Steamship the Pacific Stronghold, Her Boiler, Engine, Etc. v. William CarterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.