Briglio v. Holt & Jeffery

Citations

• 85 Wash. 155
• 147 P. 877
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 829

Syllabus

<p>Explosives — Injuries From Blast — Trial — Instructions — Inferences — Burden of Proof. In an action for personal injuries caused by tbe explosion of a blast, wherein proof of the injury made a prima facie case of negligence, instructions to that effect and that the jury should then “determine from the evidence, the burden being upon the defendants, whether or not these defendants in the conduct of their work were careless and negligent in the manner in which they conducted their blasting,” without any other charge that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs to establish the injury, and elements of her case, constituted prejudicial error: since it inferred that the burden was upon defendants to disprove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all the allegations and proof on the part of plaintiffs.</p> <p>Explosives — Burden of Proof — Res Ipsa Loquitur. The presumption of want of due care under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to injuries from blasting, and while it places the burden of proof on defendant, such presumption is rebutted when evidence and inferences are shown, not necessarily preponderating against, but merely counterbalancing the inference derived from, the presumption.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Res Ipsa Loquitur — Burden of Proof. In an action for negligence involving the question of res ipsa .loquitur, the proper instruction would be that the burden is upon plaintiff to establish all his controverted allegations by a fair preponderance of the evidence; and where a situation necessarily raised an inference of defendant’s negligence, the burden then devolves upon defendant to rebut such presumption by evidence of due care and proper precaution.</p>