The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is an artist who creates plexiglass sculptures. P entered his studio to find a station wagon parked within, just inside of a 10' roll-back garage door. The bumper was very close to a large sculpture. The car had been placed there by Bronson (D) so that he could avoid the chill while fixing some dents in the automobile. P had not given Bronson (D) permission to put the car in the studio. P did not order him to remove the car at once. P did ask him to remove the car as soon as possible. P's attention was drawn away from Bronson (D) as he talked on the telephone. P glanced back toward where Bronson (D) was working and saw him 'flying through the air . . . at least three feet off the ground -- and he landed in the middle of [a plexiglass sculpture].' Four sculptures in all were destroyed. P sued Bronson (D) and Corrigan (D), Bronson’s principal. D filed a motion for directed verdict. After extended argument over the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the court granted Ds' motion and directed a verdict in their favor. P could not show what caused Bronson's (D) body to fall or be thrown onto the sculptures. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.