334 Md. 231, 638 A.2d 762 (1994)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a negligence action filed by plaintiff elevator passenger against defendants, elevator manufacturer, building owner; and building manager, the elevator manufacturer appealed the judgment of the court of special appeals (Maryland), which affirmed the jury verdict that was entered in favor of the building owner and building manager, but which reversed the jury verdict that was entered in favor of the elevator manufacturer.
-An elevator passenger was injured when he stepped onto an elevator that was not level with the floor. -The elevator passenger filed a negligence action against the elevator manufacturer, building owner, and building manager.
-The jury returned a verdict in favor of the elevator manufacturer, building owner, and building manager. The court of special appeals reversed as to the elevator manager.
-The court reversed and remanded with directions for the judgment of the trial court to be reinstated.
-The court found that the trial court committed no error in refusing to give a requested instruction on res ipsa loquitur because that doctrine did not apply.
-The elevator passenger offered direct evidence that purported to render an explanation of the cause of the elevator's misleveling.
-In addition, because of the complex and technical nature of the probable cause of the accident, expert testimony was used in order to support an inference of negligence.
-Thus, the jury was not asked to draw any inferences from circumstantial evidence presented, and the elevator passenger was precluded from relying on res ipsa loquitur.
-Res ipsa loquitur is applied in negligence actions as a permissible inference that literally means "the thing speaks for itself."
-Res ipsa loquitur is merely a short way of saying that the circumstances attendant upon an accident are themselves of such a character as to justify a court or jury in inferring negligence as the cause of that accident.
-The doctrine allows a plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case when he could not otherwise satisfy the traditional requirements for proof of negligence.
-The jury is thereby permitted, but not compelled, to infer a defendant's negligence without the aid of any direct evidence.
-Even when the doctrine applies, however, the burden of proving the defendant's negligence remains upon the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the judgment that had reversed the jury verdict that had been entered in favor of the elevator manufacturer in a negligence action. The court remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?