Soltz v. Colony Recreation Center

In support of the judgment of reversal by the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in (a) failing to charge the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, (b) refusing to give plaintiffs’ requested instruction No. 5 relating to res ipsa loquitur, and (c) giving defendants’ special request to charge No. 6, which eliminated the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur from the case.

Therefore, the first question to be considered is whether the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the facts disclosed by the evidence in this case.

A recent definition of the…