...Button v. Frink, 51 Conn. 351, 50 Am. Rep. 24. " 'There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown to be under the management...reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.' This statement of doctrine has met with judicial...

...were lowered to the ground. The Court said there must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but when the thing is shown to be under the management of the...use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanations by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. This case...

...: " But where the thing is shown to be under Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad Company v. Back. the management of the defendant or his servants, and...reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants that the accident arose from the want of care. Scott v. London, etc., Co., 3 H. & C. (Exch.)...

...that " where the thing " (goods suspended over the pavement, which fell and injured the plaintiff) " is shown to be under the management of the defendant...happen if those who have the management use proper Elysia, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 540; sion, and under their control, some(A) See per Sir J. Hanuen in The...

...or his servants, " and the accident is such as under an ordinary course of things, does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care,...defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. Scott v Dock Co., 10 Jur. (NS) 1108; Brigga v. Oliver, 4 Hurlst & Colt 407; Mullen v. St. John, 57...

...as in the ordipresumed to nary course of things does not happen if those who have the erespons1 e. management use proper care, it affords reasonable...defendant that the accident arose from want of care." On this principle the opinion was 5 Ex: 787. expressed in Skinner v. London and Brighton Ry. Co., that...

...arises, or, as has been said, res ipisa loquitur, where the thing which does the mischief is solely under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen where proper care is used ; although the presumption...

...the defendant; and, as said In the exchequer chamber, in Scott v. Docks Co., 8 Hurl. & С. Б96. 601: "Where the thing Is shown to be under the management...defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." We see no indication of contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part, for her evidence shows that...

...The plaintiff's counsel cite the rule as stated in Scott v. Docks Co., 8 Hurl. & C. 596, as follows: "Where the thing is shown to be under the management...defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." There is no occasion to consider whether the rule, as above stated, needs qualification or not. There...

...doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. It fulfills every requirement of the generally approved definition: "When the thing is shown to be under the management of the...of explanation by the defendant, that the accident aroso from want of care." Scott v. London Docks Co., 2 H. & C. 596. When the plaintiff gave evidence...