New Hampshire
How Byrne v. Boadle applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
New Hampshire law acknowledges the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, similar to the principles established in Byrne v. Boadle. The state applies this doctrine by allowing plaintiffs to establish that an accident was caused by the defendant's negligence through circumstantial evidence when direct evidence may be lacking.
In New Hampshire, the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied when the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, under circumstances indicating that the instrumentality causing the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant.
The court found that the injury was an event that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, allowing application of res ipsa loquitur.
The court reiterated that the plaintiff must show that the harm is the type that would not occur without negligence and that the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality.
The court permitted res ipsa loquitur instruction, implying a presumption of negligence where food contamination occurred under the defendant's control.
New Hampshire's application of res ipsa loquitur aligns closely with federal standards, emphasizing the requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate that the accident is of a type that would not occur without negligence. However, New Hampshire jurisprudence underscores the necessity for exclusive control more explicitly than in some federal cases.
The concept of res ipsa loquitur as it relates to negligence is frequently tested on the New Hampshire bar exam, emphasizing the need to identify causation when direct evidence is unavailable.