Quin v. George Washington University

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that the principal argument on appeal related to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur
• explaining that a plaintiff is not entitled to a res ipsa loquitur instruction where “two equally plausible conclusions were deducible”
• indicating that the principal argument on appeal related to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on res ipsa loqui-tur
• stating that “if an expert can say as a matter of expert knowledge that the injury does not ordinarily occur unless caused by negligence, the jury should be permitted to infer negligence from the occurrence”
• circumstantial evidence must make plaintiff's theory reasonably probable to establish causation as an element of res ipsa loquitur
• circumstantial evidence must make plaintiff’s theory reasonably probable to establish causation as an element of res ipsa loquitur

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).