In this instance, Justice Posner applied the res ipsa loquitur concept.
Which implies that the accident was the cause of plaintiff's hand
injury in this case. That is to say, the fact that the accident could not
have happened unless the user was irresponsible is sufficient
evidence that the defendant was negligent.
The judge's reasoning for overturning the lower court's rulings is that
he considers a standard amount of force to put a lid on a jar should
not have shattered it because they are durable. He then describes
how the jar got to the defendant's house: it had to go via the store,
then to the accident site, where it was subjected to a lot of stress,
and if it had been defective, it would have shattered during that
procedure. As a result, the chances of the jar becoming defective
were extremely slim.
I support the choice. Because the jar would have been destroyed
during shipping if it had been defective. Or, because glass jars are
subjected to a lot of pressure throughout transportation, purchasing,
and usage, the jar would have broken when the customer was paying
for it or using it. As a result, there's a good chance the fault was
added after the sale and before the plaintiff utilized it.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). McGraw Hill
