Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Res Ipsa Loquitur (Introduction (In most cases P will have to prove…
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Introduction
In most cases P will have to prove elements of negligence
- Duty of care
- Breach of Standard of care
- Causation
- Harm not too remote
However: Situations where the fact of the injury being caused is such that it could only have resulted through negligence on part of another party
GOVERNED BY RES IPSA LOQUITUR- THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
As general rule in tort, it is for P to prove negligence and not for the D to disprove it
- AS AN EXCEPTION- RES IPSA LOQUITUR ALLOWS A COURT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO DRAW AN INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ON BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE NATURE
Courts will generally require evidence of an extraordinary event which would not normally have occurred had he D been taking reasonable care
Alternative explaination
Gahan v Engineering Products Ltd: Court found that all that is required for a P to succeed is to estbalish facts from which an inference of negligence on the part of the D may reasonably be inferred
Refusal to apply Res Ipsa Loquitur on basis there could be alternative explanations
Lindsay v Mid Western Health Board:
Facts: 8 year old P admitted to a hospital under care of D where an emergency appendectomy carried out
- P never regained consciousness
- At time of hearing she had been in comma for over 18 years
SC: considered doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
- Emphasised the need for evidence of an extraordinary event which would not normally occur if due care was being taken
Held: Rule must not place so onerous a burden on a D that unjust results would be produced
- In present case it would be unjustifiable extension of the law to say negligence on part of D must be inferred in absence of an explanation for the injury
- Medical injuries are such that any number of causes could have induced the coma
- Unless negligence can be inferred, they cwould not extend the doctrine to cover present case
O'Rilly Borthers v Irish Industrial explosives:
- The D's rock-blasting activities was not the cause of the damage to the P's land as it was found that such damage could have been caused by fissures in the adjoining rocks
Origins
Scott v London and St Katherin Docks Co
P was passing under loading bay of D's warehouse
- Sacks of sugar fell from bay and landed on him causing injury
Held: Negligence on part of D could be presumed in the circumstances
- Placed conditions on that general principle
a) The thing hs to be shown to be under the management of he D or his servants and
b) The accident must be such that in the ordinary course of events does not happen if proper care is used
The doctrine is said to have originated from an off-hand remark made to counsel by a judge during the course of an argument in Byrne v Boadle 1863. The plaintiff was injured by a barrel of flour which fell from a window above the defendant’s shop.
- The defendant did not explain how the incident occurred. - - On appeal, counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff “was bound to give affirmative proof of negligence. But there was not a scintilla of evidence, unless the occurrence is of itself evidence of negligence.”
The judge said that “there are certain cases of which it may be said res ipsa loquitur and this seems one of them...”
Exceptional facts
A second consideration for the courts is whether the facts of the case are so exceptional and striking that an inference of negligence can be made
Hanrahan v Merck, Sharpe and Dohme
Facts: P cliamed their health and the health of their livestoke had been affected by the emissions of a nearby factory operated and controlled by teh Ds
Held: HC and SC: refused to apply doctrine of res ipsa loquitor
NEED FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCESHenchy J summarised position as:
*The ordinary rule is that a person who alleges a particular tort must, in order to succeed, prove all the necessary ingredients of that tort
- it is not for the D to disprove anything*
Thus, in tort of negligence, where damage has been caused to the P in circumstances in which such damage would not usually be caused without negligence on part of D
- Rule of Res Ipsa Loquitor will allow the act relied on to be evidence of negligence in the absence of proof by the D that it occurred without want of due care on his part
Shifting burden:
The rationale behind the shifting the onus of proof to the D would appear to lie in the fact it would be palpably unfair to require a P to prove something which is beyond his reach and which is peculiarly within the range of D's capacity of proof
CRITICISM
Hency J's decision in Hanarhan criticised by many commentators because it introduces additional elements to an already exceptional doctrine
- Additional elements referred to in teh decision that it would be unfair to require a P to prove something which is beyond their reach
- the issue in qu is peculiarily within the range of the D's capacity of proof
- Make it even more difficult for p to rely on teh doctrine
Point made the doctrine should be applied in circumstances where there is particular and credible circumstntial evidence in a given case
- rather than being estab w reference to issues of 'fairness' to a P or specific knowledge on the part of a D
Despite this criticism test approved in
Rothwell v MIBI: Oil spill on road
- Hardiman J expressly approved of the decision saying the doctrine would only apply where 'a particular element lies pre-eminently within D's knowledge
Future of the rule
There have been some suggestions the rule is just a convenienct way of stating an obvious fact of how evidence is treated
O'Connor v The Pennine Acute Hospital NHS
Yip J: More recent authority has tended to view that res ipsa loquitur is not a principle of law at all
- There is no reversal of teh burden of proof
- The so called res ipsa loquitur cases are merely cases in which, in the totality of the evidence he court was able to make a finding of negligence
- It has always been the position that courts can make findings of fact by means of inference when there is no direct evidence of the events in issue
Rule applied in:
Quinn v South Eastern Health Board:
P developed complications after surgical procedure and please RIL
Held: The surgeon in qu was
a) required ot offer an explanation of how the complications could have occured
b) failed to readily explain them
= liable
O'Brien v Derwin adn Another
P injured when loose horses struck his car one night while he was driving on teh road
Held: Horses under control of Ds who were held to have caused their escape and subsequent damgage