The theory of liability that Justice Posner used in finding the
defendant liable is the doctrine res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine states
that an accident that is not likely to happen is circumstantial
evidence that the defendant was negligent (Kubasek et. al, 2019).
The judges’ reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court
were due to the fact that a jar would not shatter under a normal
amount of force if it was not defective. Justice Posner also states
that the situation was too remote for a rational person to be able to
take measures preventing the accident.
I do agree with the judge’s decision to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
There was no evidence to prove that the jar was damaged while in
possession of the plaintiff. I do wonder what would have caused the
jar to break the second time it was used instead of the first time.
That stood out to me but since the probability of the defect
occurring by the plaintiff was small, I do believe the defect occurred
from the defendant.
Kubasek, K., N., Browne, M, N. Dhooge, J., L., Herron, J., D., Barkacs,
L., L. (2017). Dynamic Business Law fourth edition. McGraw-Hill.
New York, New York.
