Scott v London and St Katherine’s Docks [1865] EngR 220

A customs officer was injured by falling bags of sugar at the defendant's warehouse. The court held that the incident itself was sufficient evidence of negligence, establishing the legal principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' (the thing speaks for itself).

Facts

The claimant, Mr Scott, was a customs officer. While on duty, he was lawfully present on the premises of the London and St Katherine Docks Company. As he was passing the entrance to one of the defendant’s warehouses, six heavy bags of sugar, which were being handled by the defendant’s employees using a crane, fell and struck him. The claimant suffered serious injuries but was unable to provide any direct evidence as to the specific act of negligence that caused the bags to fall.

Issues

The primary legal issue was whether a claimant could successfully establish a case of negligence when they were unable to prove the specific negligent act that caused their injury. Essentially, could the mere fact that the accident occurred serve as evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant who had control over the situation?

Judgment

The Court of Exchequer Chamber found in favour of the claimant, setting aside the initial non-suit and ordering a new trial. The judgment established the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Chief Justice Erle delivered the seminal statement of the principle, holding that the circumstances of the accident provided a prima facie case of negligence that the defendant must rebut.

In his judgment, Chief Justice Erle stated:

But where the thing is shewn to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

The court reasoned that bags of sugar do not ordinarily fall from a crane without some negligence. Since the crane and the bags were under the exclusive control and management of the defendant’s employees, the incident itself was sufficient evidence to infer a want of care. This shifted the evidential burden to the defendant to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident. As they had offered no such explanation, the claimant had presented enough evidence for the case to proceed.

Implications

This case is a landmark authority in the law of tort for formally establishing the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This principle is of critical importance for claimants who are injured in situations where they cannot know the precise cause of the accident, but the circumstances strongly suggest negligence. It prevents a defendant who has exclusive control and knowledge of the events from escaping liability simply because the claimant cannot pinpoint the exact breach of duty. The decision ensures that in certain types of accidents, the law will infer negligence unless the defendant can prove otherwise, thereby promoting fairness and providing a remedy for injured parties who would otherwise be left without recourse.

Verdict: The court set aside the non-suit and ordered a new trial.

Source: Scott v London and St Katherine's Docks [1865] EngR 220