Lucid v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of -the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California. Action by John Eucid against the E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Company, a corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of -the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California. Action by John Eucid against the E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Company, a corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. The plaintiff in error, in his complaint to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged that on February 20, 1908, he was employed by the defendant in error, a corporation engaged in manufacturing and storing acids, powder, dynamite, and other high explosives, as a track foreman on a certain tramway connected with said business; that…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is contended that upon the statement of the facts alleged in the complaint a cause of action arises in favor of the plaintiff in .error, and a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant in error, or, in other words, that res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur involves an exception to the general rule that negligence must be affirmatively shown, and is not to be inferred, and the doctrine is to be applied only when the nature of the accident itself, not only supports the inference of the defendant’s negligence, but excludes…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & PowerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
- Stephenson v. S. Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Moynihan v. Hills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Bonner v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
- Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Scellars v. Universal Service EverywhereCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Owen v. BeauchampCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.