Res ipsa loquitur, Latin for “the thing speaks for itself,” is a doctrine in English tort law used to infer negligence from the mere occurrence of an event or accident that typically would not happen without negligence.
Definition and application
This principle applies when direct evidence of negligence is absent, but circumstances clearly indicate negligent behaviour. It shifts the evidential burden to the defendant, who must demonstrate that negligence did not occur.
Key cases and historical context
Established notably in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865), the doctrine was applied where a claimant was injured by bags of sugar falling from a warehouse. The event itself indicated negligence, as bags typically do not fall without negligence.
In Mahon v Osborne (1939), surgical instruments accidentally left inside a patient also invoked the doctrine, as such errors inherently imply negligence.
Requirements for application
- The incident must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence.
- The incident must be caused by something under the defendant’s exclusive control.
- The claimant must not have contributed to the cause.
Consequences and legal significance
When successfully invoked, res ipsa loquitur eases the claimant’s burden by establishing a prima facie case of negligence, compelling the defendant to provide an alternative explanation.
Criticisms and limitations
Critics argue the doctrine can unfairly presume negligence, placing defendants at a procedural disadvantage. However, its utility remains acknowledged in cases where direct evidence of negligence is unavailable or obscured.
