Britton v. University of Chicago Hospitals

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff could not show that the defendant’s alleged negligence proximately caused the revolving glass door to shatter where it was just as logical to infer that the plaintiff caused the glass to shatter
• granting summary judgment against plaintiff claiming negligence, where plaintiff presented no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge by defendant
• pointing out that revolving door cannot operate itself and that injured user or previous user may have applied excessive force to door, causing door glass to shatter
• plaintiff injured by glass door but could not say how the injury occurred or how long the door had been defective
• “if two reasonable inferences are deducible from the same facts, one of which comports with defendant’s responsibility and the other is directly contra thereto, neither should be indulged to permit recovery by use of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).