the doctrine of res ispa loquitur

8/7/2019 The Doctrine of Res Ispa Loquitur

1/3

The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Latin maxim of res ipsa loquitur means simply, the thing speaks for itself. It is a

rule of evidence whereby the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer may be inferred by the

fact that an accident occurred. The burden of proving negligence always lies on the

plaintiff. However, res ipsa loquitor makes it easier for the plaintiff to claim damages,

where the cause of an accident is unknown.

The case of Scott v London & St. Katherine Docks Co. [1875] sets the criteria required

for the application of res ipsa loquitur. Chief Justice Earle established that:

1. The accidents cause is shown to be under the management of the defendant orhis servant

2. The accident is such as in the ordinary course of things it does not happen if themanagement use proper care

Simply put, there was an accident, the plaintiff was injured, the defendant was also

present, the defendant must be responsible and therefore, the defendant must pay.

This brings to the forefront the issue of the reliability, consistency and fairness of the

doctrine. It has been argued that the doctrine assigns exceptional value to circumstantial

evidence. In that, a plaintiff is not required to present direct evidence, such as an eye

witness or the clear identity of the defendant but simply circumstantial evidence, which

proves a fact through an inference. It also provides that a defendant may incur serious

liability without a trace of evidence that he acted wrongly or breached his duty of care

and it allows too, for a plaintiff to acquire large amounts of damages simply because they

were in an accident. Furthermore, the law has not been clear as to what is proper care or

what is an unusual accident and how they should be applied in different contexts.


2/3

In the case of, Jamaica Omnibus Services Ltd v Hamilton [1970] where the plaintiff, a

child aged nine years, fell through an emergency door of an omnibus belonging to the

defendant company while the bus was in motion, and was injured, the plaintiff could rely

on the assistance of the doctrine of res ipsa loquiturand negligence was found as a matterof inference from the mere fact that the door flew open while the bus was in motion.Thecritical questions arise as to whether that duty had been breached and whether thedefendant was negligent? It can be argued that the driver and the conductor, the servants

of Jamaica Omnibus Ltd, were clearly guilty since they were put in charge of the bus and

were responsible for any injuries sustained by passengers once they entered. However, it

can also be argued that the driver and conductor would not have control over the actions

of unruly passengers who tamper with the catches of the door and should therefore not be

held liable for the injury sustained by the victim.

The above case illustrates the many inconsistencies with the doctrine and its unfair

approach. Under the doctrine, the plaintiff can be awarded damages even if he cannot

distinctly identify who caused his injury or how it took place. The doctrine places

liability on those found to be in charge even if they had nothing at all to do with the

wrongful act or the damage caused. How then could they have breached their duty of

care?

NEED MORE CASES!!!!

A more critical question can now be raised, why has the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur been

retained? It can be argued that the requirement to put forward mere circumstantial

evidence in res ipsa loquitur is well suited in cases of medical negligence. For example,

where a patient undergoing surgery wakes up to severe complications and cannot identify

the individual doctor who caused his injury or cannot disclose how the injury occurred,

he can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine also aids in strict liability

cases where for example manufacturers may claim that they were not negligent in their

distribution of certain products. However, the doctrine allows for the negligence to be


3/3

inferred based on no direct evidence but on circumstantial evidence put forward by the

plaintiff.

In essence, the doctrine of res ipsa seeks to make it easier for the plaintiff to sue for

damages based on the inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence. The better

view is not that the doctrine of res ipsa should be totally dispelled but that it should be

left for application in limited circumstances.

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the doctrine of res ispa loquitur

Documents