We are of opinion that the facts shown by the evidence, uncontradicted and unexplained, &re sufficient to warrant the inference that the loss of control of the automobile and the collision with the poles, and the resulting injuries, were caused by the negligence of the defendant m the operation of her automobile. In other words, the situation calls for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The machine was owned and operated by the defendant. The accident was an unusual happening, and, in the absence of any explanation, the jury was justified in inferring that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant.

The trial court in its charge to the jury did not use the expression res ipsa loquitur, but it did charge the jury that it should consider ail the evidence which had been offered in the ease, and consider as to whether that evidence, and any natural, probable and reasonable inferences which might be drawn from the evidence established or proved the defendant guilty of negligence. And that if such evidence proved the defendant guilty of negligence, which negligence resulted in injuries to the plaintiff, she was liable to the plaintiff. So that these inferences were submitted to the jury although not under the technical term.

See: Bag Co. v. Jaite, 112 Ohio St. 506; also Feiss v. Hensch, 8 Ohio Appellate District, decided October 31, 1927.

Our conclusion is that the trial court was correct in overruling the motion for an instructed verdict; that there was sufficient evidence under the maxim res ipsa loquitur to sustain the verdict of the jury; and that no error, prejudicial to the defendant, plaintiff in error here, intervened.

The judgment will be affirmed.