Whether res ipsa loquitur could apply when Seffert participated in the events leading to the accident and the transit company did not have superior knowledge of its cause.
Holding
Yes. Neither Seffert's participation nor an asserted lack of superior knowledge barred application of res ipsa loquitur.
Reasoning
The court rejected the premise that a defendant's superior knowledge is a prerequisite to res ipsa loquitur. California precedent treats the doctrine's inference of negligence as available without requiring that the defendant know more about the precise cause of the event than the plaintiff does.
A plaintiff's participation in the events leading to an accident also does not automatically defeat res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine may apply when there is evidence from which the jury could find that any negligence by the plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injury.
The instructions limited the doctrine to the circumstance in which the jury found Seffert to be a passenger. Under the court's passenger definition, she could not qualify if she imprudently attempted to enter the bus in the manner defendants claimed. The jury was also separately instructed to find for defendants if Seffert was contributorily negligent. The verdict therefore necessarily reflected acceptance of Seffert's version of the accident and rejection of defendants' contributory-negligence theory.】【。},{