Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Res Ipsa Liquuitor - Facts speak for themselves (Notes (Only a rule of…
-
-
:warning: When the maxim applied the burden is on D to prove on a balance of probabilities that
he was not negligent;
Safeena Umma v Siddick
P, a boy, standing on a step in his house by the side of a road. D had to bear the burden of disproving negligence. HELD: Maxim applies as is it not usual for a bus to collide into a house
-
-
Burden on D is not to prove the absence of negligence. It only requires him to give reasonable explanation which would negative the inference of negligence.
If D successfully discharge burden, then P should show
-
-
:warning: In the field of Medical negligence it was doubtful as to whether the maxim applied as judge / jury would reg. med. knowledge to draw an inference as to negligence. limited application where there is little doubt an inference should be drawn
-
-
:warning:When the balance has been titled in one way, D cannot escape burden by adding an
equal weight for each side of the scale
Moore v. Fox and Sons
M was employed by D to maintain a de-rusting tank. Tank exploded and M was killed. M's wife P sued D and pleaded Res Ipsa Loquitur. D's brought forward hypothetical explanations did not displace the prima facie case made out against D.
-
-