60.800 Res Ipsa Loquitur

60.800 Res Ipsa Loquitur When something unusual and unexplained happens with respect to a thing or instrumentality over which the defendant has exclusive control, an inference may arise that the injury was due to the defendant's negligence. The inference may or may not be drawn by you, but in any event it would be a question of fact for you to determine under all the surrounding facts and circumstances as you find them to have existed at the time and place of the occurrence. Should you draw an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur from the manner of the occurrence or the circumstances of the occurrence, the drawing of such inference is not necessarily to result in a finding for the plaintiff or to eliminate a finding for the defendant. It is your duty to further inquire about whether the inference has been overcome by satisfactory explanation. The inference that you may draw from the proved facts is circumstantial evidence only, which you have for consideration along with all other evidence in the case. It is your duty to weigh this evidence along with all other evidence and determine where the preponderance of evidence lies. Hotel Dempsey Co. v. Miller, 81 Ga. App. 233, 234 (1950) Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co., 117 Ga. 106 (1903) Palmer Brick Co. v. Chenall, 119 Ga. 837 (1904) Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Burke, 109 Ga. App. 53, 64 (1964) (Note: Application of this principle requires careful study of the peculiar facts of each case as well as adjustment of the exact language of the charge.) Atlanta Coca-Cola v. Ergle, 128 Ga. App. 381 (1973) Fender v. Colonial Stores Inc., 138 Ga. App. 31 (1976)