Plaintiff withdrew $4,000 in cash from his T.D. Bank account on August 28, 2014, and proceeded to dinner at Prime restaurant. He left 36 one hundred-dollar bills in the center console of his car and gave exclusive custody and control of his vehicle to employees of the defendant restaurant valet service, Advanced Parking Services. The plaintiff retrieved his vehicle one hour and 40 minutes later, only to discover that $3,600 in cash was missing. The plaintiff filed a small claims action to recover said sum, asserting a number of causes of action, including negligence.
Regarding the negligence claim, defendants produced no witnesses or evidence, but claimed to have no knowledge concerning the matter. Plaintiffs argue that, using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the happening of the loss permits, but does not compel, the court to draw an inference that the defendants were negligent. They claimed: the instrumentality that caused the accident was in the exclusive control of the defendant; the event does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence; and the event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's sworn testimony and exhibits excluded the possibility that the plaintiff himself caused or contributed to the loss, as he was in the restaurant at the time the money disappeared. How do you believe the course resolved this dispute? Why? [Zinner v. Advanced Parking Servs. (2015) 19]