Res Ipsa Exercise

Ross v. Benson

You are an appellate court judge in the state of Loyola. The following case comes to you on appeal from a trial court. You should take notes on the opinion that you would write in this case and be prepared to share your thoughts with the class.

The plaintiff, a nine-year-old named Ronnie Ross, was injured when an SUV belonging to the defendant, Idris Benson, ran him over, causing serious physical injury. The Benson family — Idris, his husband, and their twin nine-year-old children — was visiting the Ross family — Ronnie and his parents — at their home for lunch. Both families planned to attend a children’s birthday party at another family’s home later that afternoon. After eating lunch, the Bensons offered to drive Ronnie to the birthday party so that Ronnie’s parents could take their time cleaning up from lunch and could join them later. The Ross family agreed and told Ronnie to behave himself.

As the Benson family and Ronnie left the house, Idris Benson remotely unlocked his car, a 4-door SUV, that was parked in the Ross’s driveway, directly behind the Ross’s car. The driveway is on a moderate incline, and there was about five feet of space between the back of Benson’s car and a residential street. As the adults gathered birthday presents from the Ross’s house, the three children ran ahead and hopped in the backseat of the car. At trial, the children each testified that none of them got in the front seat, that none of them touched any of the control mechanisms of the car, and that “something clicked in the front and the car started rolling” backwards in the direction of the street. One of the Benson children opened the door and told the others to jump out. All three of the children jumped out. When Ronnie jumped out, he fell, and the front wheel of the SUV ran over him, causing serious injury.

At trial, the plaintiff introduced no evidence as to the condition of the brakes, whether the handbrake had been set, or what gear the car was in. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court ordered a directed verdict for the defendant finding that res ipsa loquitur does not apply and that the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case of negligence. The plaintiff now appeals.

How do you rule and why? Organize your notes for each issue according to the CREAC method:

• Conclusion
• Rule
• Explanation
• Application
• Conclusion