Claims under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur—“the thing speaks for itself”—are rarely successful.  In order to establish a claim under this doctrine, a plaintiff must prove that the accident is of the kind that ordinary does not occur in the absence of negligence; the instrumentality that caused the accident was in the defendant’s exclusive control; and the accident was not due to any action on the plaintiff’s part.  In Barney-Yeboah v Metro-North Commuter R.R., the First Department reversed the lower court’s order that denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and, in so doing, noted that while rarely granted, summary judgment is appropriate in “exceptional” res ipsa cases where the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of the defendant’s negligence is inescapable.

Barney-Yeboah was a passenger on a Metro North train when she was injured after a ceiling panel in the train car in which she was seated swung open and struck her in the head.  In support of her summary judgment motion, Barney-Yeboah submitted her deposition testimony along with the deposition testimony of the defendant’s foreman.  Metro North conceded the first and third res ipsa elements but argued that it did not have exclusive control over the ceiling panels in the train car.  On this point, the foreman described the panel as being fastened to the ceiling with four screws, two safety latches and a safety chain and testified that to his knowledge only Metro North personnel accessed the ceiling panels.  In opposition, Metro North only offered an attorney affirmation in which the attorney argued, without proof that the only logical conclusion was that the accident was caused by unauthorized individuals tampering with the ceiling panel.

The First Department held that counsel’s speculation as to what might have happened is insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s motion, as Metro North failed to offer any reason to accept the unlikely theory that a train passenger had either the tools or the inclination to tamper with the overhead panel.  As such, the evidence offered by the defendant was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to its exclusive control over the overhead train panel and summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability was appropriate.

Thanks to Alicia Sklan for her contribution to this post.  For more information, please contact Nicole Y. Brown at .