Negligence-Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Rateb Khouri v. Highland Park CVS, L.L.C.

Case No.: 25-2341

Officials: Scudder, St. Eve, and Kolar, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Negligence-Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Khouri was injured at a retail pharmacy after multiple beverage bottles fell from a cooler shelf, striking him and causing him to fall. The store’s coolers were stocked by both pharmacy employees and independent beverage vendors. Vendors were responsible for most of the products and conducted annual “reset” procedures that involved removing and cleaning the shelves. Pharmacy employees did not supervise these resets and generally did not move the shelves because of their weight. Their interaction with the shelves was largely limited to stocking store-brand products and performing routine cleaning. On the day of the incident, the customer observed nothing unusual about the cooler display. However, after removing a bottle from the shelf, numerous other bottles fell, causing his injuries. Store employees responded immediately. Neither employee had ever witnessed a similar occurrence or received prior reports of shelf defects.

The customer filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that the pharmacy was liable for his injuries. The defendant removed the case to the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction. After discovery, which included limitations on expert testimony, the district court conducted a bench trial. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because the evidence did not show that the pharmacy exercised exclusive control over the cooler shelves, given the significant role of third-party vendors in stocking and maintaining them.

The Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error and concluded that res ipsa loquitur was applicable because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the pharmacy was more likely than not responsible for the accident. The Seventh Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including its restrictions on expert testimony.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/11/26

Full Text