RATEB KHOURI v. HIGHLAND PARK CVS, LLC, and CVS PHARMACY INC

Holding: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish exclusive control required for res ipsa loquitur and that the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion.
Standard: res ipsa loquitur exclusive control
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: The decision reinforces that res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to impose liability when responsibility for a dangerous condition is shared between a business and independent contractors.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court judgment finding that a plaintiff failed to prove negligence in a slip-and-fall incident at a CVS store. The appellate court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because exclusive control over the beverage cooler shelf was divided between CVS employees and third-party vendors.

Background

Rateb Khouri was injured when beverage bottles fell from a collapsing cooler shelf at a Highland Park CVS store. Khouri sued CVS for negligence, arguing the store failed to maintain the shelves. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of CVS, finding Khouri failed to prove negligence under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and limiting the testimony of Khouri’s expert witness.

The court’s reasoning

The court analyzed whether CVS had exclusive control over the cooler shelf under Illinois law. The evidence showed that third-party vendors were responsible for restocking eighty to ninety percent of the products and performed annual resets of the shelves. CVS employees had limited interaction with the shelves and no oversight over the vendors. Because it was equally plausible that a vendor or a CVS employee caused the shelf to collapse, the court found the exclusive control element was not met. The court also affirmed the exclusion of an interrogatory answer and the limitation of expert testimony that offered legal conclusions rather than factual observations.

The doctrine applies only when the facts proved by the plaintiff admit of the single inference that the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent.

Britton v. Univ. of Chi. Hosps., 889 N.E.2d 706, 709 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to impose liability when responsibility for a dangerous condition is shared between a business and independent contractors.