Res Ipsa Loquitur Legal Phrase

The term comes from Latin and is literally translated as “the thing itself speaks”, but the meaning is well conveyed in the more common translation “the thing speaks for itself”. [1] The first known use of the term comes from Cicero in his pro Milone defense speech. [2] [3] The circumstances of the genesis of the theorem and its application by Cicero in Roman judicial proceedings have led to the question of whether it reflects the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine after 52 BC. A.D., some 1915 years before the English case of Byrne v Boadel, and whether Charles Edward Pollock was directly inspired by Cicero`s application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case. [4] In Canada, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been largely overturned by the Supreme Court. In Fontaine v. British Columbia (official administrator),[7] the court rejected the use of res ipsa loquitur and instead proposed the rule that, once the plaintiff has proven that the damage is within the exclusive control of the defendant and does not comply with it, a tactical burden is placed on the defendant in which the judge has discretion. find negligence, unless the defendant can prove otherwise. “I think a distinction must be made between a case in which an unavoidable accident must be proved for defence and a case of res ipsa loquitur.

Take, for example, trespassing, against which an inevitable accident can be a defense. If the plaintiff proves the trespass (I am now dealing with the ordinary case and not the trespassing resulting from the use of the highway), his case is complete and the defendant fails unless he proves his defence. However, if the cause of action is negligence, the plaintiff must prove negligence; Res ipsa loquitur is a principle that helps him do this. In the classic explanation of Erle J.`s rule in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co [(1865) 3 H & C 596, 601], it is concluded that it says nothing more than the fact that the occurrence of an accident in certain circumstances may in itself constitute reasonable evidence of negligence; And if there is sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and no explanation on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff is of course entitled to succeed. If the defendant offers a plausible explanation consistent with his due diligence, the plaintiff is back to where he was before and must prove a greater likelihood of negligence. To better understand the meaning of the authority of the ipsa thing, you must first understand the concept of negligence. In English tort law, the effect of res ipsa loquitur is a strong finding in favour of the plaintiff that there has been negligence. However, it does not completely reverse the burden of proof (Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, 1988). [12] Under this res ipsa model, the plaintiff must meet three requirements before a jury can find that the defendant`s negligence caused the harm in question: In some States, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or element of mens rea of the immature crime of attempt. According to the Model Penal Code, it is assumed that “the conduct in question confirms the criminal intent of the accused,”[23] for example: The use of res ipsa is common in cases of medical malpractice, where injured patients often do not have access to evidence of a physician`s negligence.

For example, it can be used to demonstrate that a physician was negligent in performing surgery while the patient was unconscious and therefore was unable to observe or gather evidence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur often appears in the “scalpel left behind” variant. For example, a person with abdominal pain consults a doctor after their appendix is removed. X-rays show that the patient has a metal object the size and shape of a scalpel in his abdomen. No further explanation is needed to demonstrate that the surgeon who removed the appendix was negligent, as there is no legitimate reason for a doctor to leave a scalpel in a body at the end of an appendectomy. [6] In some cases, a closed group of persons may be detained in breach of a duty of care under the res ipsa loquitur rule. In Ybarra v. Spangard[5], a patient undergoing surgery suffered back complications as a result of the operation, but it was not possible to determine which specific member of the surgical team had failed in his duty, so it was determined that he had injured them all, as it was certain that at least one of them was the only person, who had exclusive control over the damage instrument. The definition of res ipsa loquitur states that negligence can be presumed without proof. There could be no other explanation than negligence on the part of the defendant.

In other words, although there is no direct evidence of negligence, the damage suffered by the victim can only be explained by negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin expression that literally translates as “the thing speaks for itself”. An essential part of any case of personal injury is to be able to prove that the fault or negligence of the other party caused the damage in question. Sometimes an injured party is unable to provide direct evidence of negligence. Fortunately, California`s doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means that circumstantial evidence may suffice if the harm was of the type that would not normally occur without negligence. The expression res ipsa loquitur is not a doctrine, but a “way of reasoning” and applies only to accidents of unknown cause. [9] [10] Res ipsa loquitur applies when an accident of unknown origin is an accident that would not normally occur without the negligence of the defendant, who has control of the object or activity that injured the plaintiff or damaged his property. In such a situation, the court may find that the defendant was negligent unless the court offers an acceptable explanation consistent with its due diligence.

[9] Because assault and evidence laws are set at the state level, the law on res ipsa loquitur varies slightly from state to state. However, a general consensus has emerged and most States follow a basic formulation of res ipsa. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving the three elements of the authority of the sipsa thing, the defendant has the opportunity to refute. You can challenge any of the three elements of your res ipsa case. If you have been involved in an accident but are not sure if you have enough evidence to make a successful case, contact our team of legal experts in Valiente Mott. A resipsa loquitur claim is often made in commercial aircraft accidents. This was part of the comment during a 2008 California rail collision: “If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent.” [22] Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that indicate that negligence is a logical conclusion, rather than proving it directly. This allows judges and jurors to infer negligence based on the set of circumstances and shared knowledge that results from human experience. Res ipsa is a type of circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable investigator to establish that the defendant`s negligence caused an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff. Finally, the defendant was able to prove that it had no legal duty of care to the plaintiff or that the damage did not fall within the scope of the duty owed. For example, if the law imposes only a limited obligation on the defendant not to behave recklessly, then res ipsa does not assist the plaintiff in making a finding of negligence, since an act of negligence would not violate the duty owed to the plaintiff.

This article will elaborate on the meaning of res ipsa loquitur, the defense of res ipsa, and how negligence plays a role in this legal doctrine. Note: For res ipsa loquitur to apply, the accident in question must not result from a voluntary act or contribution of the claimant. The doctrine traditionally requires that a defendant have exclusive control over the cause of injury, but now it is often applied when multiple defendants control a common or sometimes successive defendant (such as by the manufacturer and retailer of a defective product).