Daniel Ozark, Individually and as Next Friend for Dwain Ozark, a Minor v. Wichita Manor, Incorporated, and City of Wichita Falls, Texas
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lonnie A. Dement v. Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corporation, E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Lonnie A. Dement (5th Cir. 1960)
- Reilly Ex Rel. Reilly v. Straub (Iowa 1979)
- Texas Sling Company v. Emanuel (Tex. 1968)
- Delores Mae Olsen, as Administratrix of the Estate of George Olsen, Deceased v. States Line, a Foreign Corporation (9th Cir. 1967)
- Ford Motor Company v. Marvin R. Mathis (5th Cir. 1963)
- Lorenc v. Chemirad Corp. (N.J. 1962)
- Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., Owner and Operator of the Steamship the Pacific Stronghold, Her Boiler, Engine, Etc. v. William Carter (9th Cir. 1960)
- George S. Weigand v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation (3d Cir. 1959)
- Victorias Milling Co., Inc., as Owners of the M/v Nonsuco v. Panama Canal Company (5th Cir. 1959)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Specific acts complained of or evidence establishing the likely existence of them do not prevent the case being one for application of res ipsa loquitur. Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Elliott, 125 Tex. 248, 81 S.W.2d 659, cited recently with approval Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 143 Tex. 272, 183 S.W.2d 968, 969, 160 A.L.R. 1445. In a case calling for res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff “* * * ought not to be penalized by the loss of the presumption because he has been willing to go forward and do the best he can to prove specific acts of negligence. On the contrary he ought to be encouraged to give the court, the jury, and even the defendant the benefit of whatever facts, if any, his effort may develop toward revealing the specific causes of the mishap. And of course if a plaintiff should not be penalized for making the effort, he ought not to be later penalized for succeeding. * * Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Clayton, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 422, 424, error refused n. r. e. As Texas has many times approved the statement of the rule in San Juan Light & Transit Co. v. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 32 S.Ct. 399, 56 L.Ed. 680, and Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815, see, e. g., Texas Power & Light Co. v. Bristow, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W. 702, 704, error refused; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dunman, Tex.Com.App., 27 S.W. 2d 116, 118, 72 A.L.R. 90; Thompson v. Jason, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 920, 922, error refused, n. r. e., our cases of Texas and Pacific Ry. Co. v. Buckles, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 257, 263, see note 14, and Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Justis, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 267, 270, see note 3, reflect a form in which the matter may be submitted. See also Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Ft. Worth v. Thomas, Tex. Civ.App., 263 S.W.2d 644, error refused, n. r. e.
Petition denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.