A level Law: Liability in Negligence for Injury to People and Damage to Property: Tort of Negligence: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Scott v The London and St. Katherine Docks Company (1865)

The claimant was near the door of the defendant's warehouse and under a crane when some sugar bags fell on him. The only witness was the claimant.
The judge directed the jury to find for the defendant on the grounds of lack of evidence
The claimant appealed and a new trial was ordered. The defendant appealed against the ordering of the new trial
Held: The Court of Exchequer Chamber dismissed the appeal and a new trial was ordered
Erle CJ stated:

"There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but, where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant, or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management of the machinery use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care

The Effect of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The effect of res ipsa loquitur is to create a prima facie presumption of negligence against the defendant
The defendant must then explain how the accident could have happened without negligence
What does prima facie mean? 'At first sight'

Res Ipsa Loquitur Does not Change the Burden of Proof

Sometimes it is incorrectly stated that the successful use of res ipsa loquitur changes the burden of proof from the claimant to the defendant
The burden of proof does not change. The claimant still has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities
If the claimant suffers due to an accident which ought not to have happened if the defendant had taken due care, the claimant invites the court to draw the inference that on the balance of probabilities the defendant must have failed to exercise due care even though it is not known how the accident happened
The misunderstanding occurs because res ipsa loquitur changes the 'evidential burden of proof' which is not the same as the 'burden of proof'

Using Res Ipsa Loquitur

A claimant can use res ipsa loquitur if:

Under the control of the defendant

To use res ipsa loquitur it must be shown that the thing causing damage was under the control of the defendant
In Easson v London and North Eastern Railway Co [1944] a child, aged 4 years, fell through a door in the corridor of a train which was in motion and was injured when he fell onto the railway track. The Court of Appeal held that the open door was not under the continuous control of the defendant and could have been opened by another passenger. Res ipsa loquitur could not be used in this case

The Cause of the Accident Must be Unknown

If the cause of the accident is know then res ipsa loquitur cannot be used because the facts no longer 'speak for themselves'
In Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] the claimant's husband was killed when a tyre burst on a bus he was riding on and the bus crashed. There was evidence that the tyre had been damaged by receiving heavy blows on the outside
The House of Lords stated that res ipsa loquitur could not be used because the facts were sufficiently known and these facts needed to be examined and therefore the claimants had to prove their case. It was held that the defendants were liable for negligence for failing to check the tyre adequately

The Accident Would not Normally Occur Without Negligence

To use res ipsa loquitur, it must be shown that the accident would not normally occur without negligence
In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] the claimant entered hospital for treatment on two stiff fingers. Due to inadequate post-operative care he was left with four stiff fingers and a useless hand. The hospital did not attempt to explain how it could have happened without negligence. The hospital was held to be negligent

Civil Evidence Act 1968 s.11

Claimants in negligence proceedings may be helped by the Civil Evidence Act 1968 s11 which can reverse the burden of proof in certain circumstances
If a person is convicted of a criminal offence against the claimant and the claimant then brings a civil action on the same facts that led to the conviction, then the criminal conviction is evidence of the defendant's liability unless he or she can prove to the contrary

Conclusion

Res Ipsa is a rule that puts the onus (but not the legal responsibility) of proving a claim, on the defendant. The claimant still has to prove their case on the balance of probabilities, but in a Res Ipsa scenario, the defendant has the unofficial burden of undermining the claimant's case by putting forward evidence that they did not break their duty of care
Easson suggested that if there is any evidence at all that another party could have been at fault, or if the used principles of an intervening act might be operating, then Res Ipsa will not apply

A level Law