Res Ipsa Loquitur In Tort

Res Ipsa Loquitur in Tort is a Latin legal maxim meaning "the thing speaks for itself," widely applied in tort law to infer negligence when direct evidence is lacking. This doctrine is crucial in cases where circumstantial evidence indicates that the defendant's negligence likely caused the injury. Res Ipsa Loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant, requiring the defendant to demonstrate they exercised reasonable care. Commonly applied in areas such as medical malpractice and road accidents, Res Ipsa Loquitur allows courts to establish liability based on the control of the accident and the absence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

Maxim Of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in situations where the cause of the accident lies within the defendant's control and where such incidents would not have occurred but for a failure to exercise reasonable care. Under such circumstances, the law allows the burden of proof to shift from the plaintiff to the defendant. This shift places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that he was not negligent, negating the accusations.

Background Of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The thing itself speaks, but more commonly used, the thing speaks for itself. According to the known reports, Cicero first used it in his defence speech Pro Milone. The usage of this phrase in the history of common law first comes from the case of Byrne v. Boadle. The facts of the case were that in 1863 in England, a barrel of flour fell from a two-story building and hit the plaintiff's head, but the plaintiff could not acquire direct evidence against the defendant to allege negligence on his part. However, the court held the judgment for the plaintiff and opined that the circumstances were different in this case, and there could be a presumption of negligence.

How Res Ipsa Loquitur Shifts The Burden Of Proof

In the usual tort cases, the position is usually different, where a plaintiff has to prove the defendant's negligence. However, with the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur, the tables would turn, and the plaintiff would have to prove that they were not negligent. Instead, such cases will be based upon circumstantial evidence, and all efforts by the defendant to present to defend these claims will be expected, where he will prove all reasonable care to prevent an event like this.

Essentials Of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Presence Of Negligence

For Res Ipsa Loquitor to be applicable in any case, the accident should be such that it could not have happened if the ordinary course of things had happened without negligence. For instance, like in Byrne v. Boadle, a barrel of flour cannot fall on someone's head haphazardly if the party is reasonably careful.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966, several persons died when the Clock Tower collapsed opposite the Town Hall in the main bazaar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The Supreme Court held, thus, that the Clock Tower's fall tells its own story and raises an inference of negligence on the defendant's part. Since the defendants could not prove the absence of negligence on their part, they were held liable.

Control By The Defendant

The thing that has caused the damage must be under the direct control of the defendant or his representative. It does not always lie that all the circumstances are in the defendant's control. Still, if the events leading to the accidents were in the control of others other than the defendant, then the mere happening of the accident is also not proof against the defendant. In Nihal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh, 1996, scissors were left in the body of a patient who had undergone an operation. Then, he developed other complications and died. After cremation, scissors were recovered from the ashes. Compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 was awarded to the defendants of the deceased.

Freedom From Contributory Negligence

The third essential element of the principle is that the plaintiff or any third party did not cause or contribute to the injuries he suffered. In the case of an injury to the plaintiff, if it is found that the plaintiff or third party contributed to the act that caused damage to the plaintiff, then the principal shall not apply.

Res Ipsa Loquitur In Medical Practice

It is applied in medical practice when foreign matter is left behind inside the body of a patient by which harm is caused to that patient or even death. Res Ipsa Loquitur is applied in cases when any act of negligence is committed in medical practice and a patient suffers from this. To be applied for Res Ipsa Loquitur, there must be proof that some object or thing directly demonstrates the act of negligence itself.

Res Ipsa Loquitur In Road Accidents

This maxim is also applied in cases of road accidents where several incidents of negligence committed by drivers or passengers lead to accidents. Res ipsa loquitur is only applied to cases where negligence could only have caused the injury that occurred.

Where The maxim Does Not Apply

The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies if there is a reasonable inference from the facts that the accident could not have happened but for the defendant's negligence. It does not apply if there are other inferences or if the reason for the negligence is unknown. In the K. Sobha v. Dr Mrs Raj Kumari Unithan, 1999, a 35-year-old woman with an 8-year-old son met the respondent, a gynaecologist, concerning the non-conception of another child. Upon request from the plaintiff, the needful was done by a simple procedure of blowing the air through the apparatus into the vagina under the controlled pressure.

Case Laws Related To Res Ipsa Loquitur

Roe v. Minister of Health (1954): 

In this case, the plaintiff developed paraplegia after a hospital administered a spinal anesthetic contaminated with phenol. Although the contamination occurred due to undetectable flaws in the ampoules, the plaintiff argued for applying Res Ipsa Loquitur. However, the court ultimately held that since the contamination was not foreseeable, negligence could not be presumed, thereby limiting Res Ipsa Loquitur to cases where negligence is reasonably evident.

Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd. (1962): 

Here, the plaintiff’s suitcase was lost during a bus journey when transferred between vehicles by the defendant’s staff. The court applied Res Ipsa Loquitur, placing the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate non-negligence in the handling of the luggage, as loss of luggage was unlikely without negligence in transit.

Conclusion

So, Res Ipsa Loquitur is applied primarily to all the cases prima facie, where, in the first instance, negligence on the part of the defendant is evident, and without it, the injury would not have occurred. In such a case, it is presumed that the defendant is negligent, and it is on him to prove why he is not negligent. The maxim is relevant to a person's negligence and generally applies to such cases wherein the negligence of a person has caused the act.