‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ (“the thing speaks for itself”) is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. This means that while plaintiffs typically have to prove that the defendant acted with a negligent state of mind, through Res Ipsa Loquitur, if the plaintiff puts forth certain circumstantial facts, it becomes the defendant’s burden to prove he or she was not negligent.
The elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur are:
- the defendant was in exclusive control of the situation or instrument that caused the injury;
- the injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for the defendant’s negligence; and
- the plaintiff’s injury was not due to his own action or contribution.
If these elements are met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that he was not negligent.
This doctrine applies not only to a case where the thing that inflicts the damage was under the sole management and control of the defendant but also where it is under the management and control of someone for whom he is responsible or he has a right to control.
For example, in a famous English case, Byrne v. Boadle, a man was walking on a sidewalk outside of a flour warehouse when a barrel of flour fell from a warehouse window. The man did not see the flour fall out of the window, nor could he produce any evidence to indicate how or why the barrel fell from the window of the warehouse. Still, the court thought it apparent that the flour almost certainly came from the flour manufacturer. Moreover, barrels of flour don’t ordinarily fall from warehouse windows in the absence of negligent conduct of the people running that warehouse. The warehouse workers had exclusive control of the barrel that fell out of the window and the plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to his injury.
Limitations: (i) The rule does not apply to all accidents or mischiefs. It applies only when the cause of the accident lies solely within the knowledge of the defendant or is apparently under the control of the defendant or his servant.
(ii) The rule does not create a legal presumption of negligence. There is only rebuttable and not an irrebuttable presumption of negligence which the defendant maybe able to rebut.
(iii) The burden of proving negligence is in all cases on, the plaintiff than otherwise.
(iv) Under the rule the plaintiff, in the first instance, need only prove the accident. If he proves the accident he is deemed to have adduced reasonable evidence thereby discharged his burden of proof, and a court may on the proof of negligence, enter itself within any further evidence or proof of negligence, enter judgement for the plaintiff, if the defendant does not adduce any rebutting evidence.
It is primarily applicable in all prima facie cases, where the fault on the part of the complainant is apparent at first instance and without which the damage would not have happened. It is assumed that the defendant is negligent in such a situation and it is up to him to explain why he is not negligent.
It is a sign of the law that the existence of an accident in the circumstances can allow an inference or pose a suspicion of negligence, or render a prima facie case of a claimant and raise a question of evidence for the defendant to provide with an answer.
That is just a quick way of stating that the facts involved with the crash are of such a sort that a judge is reasonable in the light of common sense and previous practice in inferring that the accident was likely the result of the fault of the defendant, in the absence of any justification or other proof that the judge claims.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.