Background
Rateb Khouri was injured at a Highland Park CVS store on May 7, 2016, when he opened a beverage cooler door to retrieve a water bottle. Upon removing a bottle, approximately 50–75 bottles fell from a collapsed shelf and struck him, knocking him to the ground. Khouri suffered hip and ankle injuries. He sued CVS for negligence, but after a five-day bench trial, the district court ruled in CVS’s favor.
At trial, evidence established that CVS’s beverage coolers operated under a shared maintenance model: third-party beverage vendors—who supplied 80–90% of the products in the coolers—were responsible for restocking vendor products, cleaning shelves during yearly resets, and repairing shelf guards. CVS employees restocked only their own products (10–20% of inventory) and performed limited maintenance such as rotating bottles daily and wiping glass doors biweekly. Crucially, no employee testified having ever seen a cooler shelf fall, and the store manager, upon finding the collapsed shelf, easily slid it back into place without apparent defect.
Khouri appealed, arguing the district court erred in rejecting his negligence claim under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and in limiting expert testimony and excluding evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Khouri failed to establish the “exclusive control” element required for res ipsa loquitur. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff relying on res ipsa loquitur must show two things: (1) an occurrence that ordinarily would not happen absent negligence, and (2) that the injurious instrumentality was within the defendant’s exclusive control. While “exclusive control” does not require total physical control, it does require evidence showing the defendant was more likely than not responsible for the injury—not merely equally plausible with another party.
Here, the third-party vendors had at least equal responsibility over the cooler shelves as CVS. The vendors restocked products weekly, performed all yearly resets (removing and replacing shelves entirely), and were the only parties ever to fully handle the shelves. CVS employees rarely touched the shelves and had no supervisory control over vendor actions. Because neither party had most recent contact with the shelf before it collapsed, and because vendor negligence was equally likely to have caused the failure, Khouri could not satisfy the exclusive control requirement. The court rejected Khouri’s argument that he need only raise the inference at pleading stage, holding that at trial he bore the burden of producing evidence showing CVS—rather than a third party—was more likely negligent.
Key Takeaways
- Res ipsa loquitur cannot apply where control of a dangerous instrumentality is “plainly divided” between defendant and another party absent evidence showing one party is more likely responsible.
- A plaintiff cannot use res ipsa loquitur to avoid naming or proving fault against a specific negligent actor when multiple parties had similar opportunities and responsibilities.
- Expert testimony stating legal conclusions (e.g., “an employee caused this” or “should have noticed”) is properly excluded; factual observations about condition, appearance, and expected employee conduct are admissible.
- In bench trials, courts must carefully distinguish between legal conclusions regarding res ipsa loquitur (reviewed de novo) and factual findings about witness credibility and what the evidence shows (reviewed for clear error).
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a critical limit on res ipsa loquitur in modern retail and service contexts where businesses commonly rely on third-party vendors for maintenance and supply functions. The ruling prevents plaintiffs from invoking the doctrine as a shortcut around the requirement to prove which party’s negligence caused the injury. For retailers and other businesses working with independent vendors or contractors, the decision confirms they need not bear sole liability for accidents arising from shared maintenance responsibilities—provided they can show the third party had comparable control and responsibility.
The opinion also reinforces the distinction between permissible expert testimony (explaining industry practices, how defects appear, what employees should observe) and impermissible legal conclusions that usurp the jury’s or judge’s role. This principle applies broadly across personal injury cases and clarifies the boundaries of expert witness scope under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a).