McDougald v. Perry
Citation: 716 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1998)
Facts
A spare tire flew out from under Perry’s tractor-trailer and struck McDougald’s vehicle. Perry had used the same strap to secure the spare tire for years. McDougald could not prove specific negligence in securing the tire.
Issue
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to the escape of a spare tire from underneath a truck?
Holding
Yes. A spare tire does not ordinarily escape from a tractor-trailer without negligence in the maintenance or securing of the tire. Res ipsa loquitur applies because: (1) the event ordinarily does not occur without negligence, (2) defendant had exclusive control over the spare tire, and (3) plaintiff did not contribute to the escape.
Rule
Res ipsa loquitur: The doctrine applies when: (1) the type of accident ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, (2) the instrumentality was in the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) the accident was not due to voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff. Once these conditions are met, the jury may (but need not) infer negligence from the occurrence of the accident.
Significance
- Modern Florida application of res ipsa loquitur confirming its continued vitality
- Illustrates that res ipsa can apply beyond surgical/hospital contexts to ordinary maintenance cases
- In Florida (and many states), res ipsa creates a permissive inference — the defendant is not required to rebut it, but failure to offer an explanation may result in a jury inference of negligence