1
What is Res Ipsa Loquitor?
What is Res Ipsa Loquitor?
DATE: 2014/07/27::
2
Torts - Res Ipsa Loquitur - Supreme Bar Review
Torts - Res Ipsa Loquitur - Supreme Bar Review
DATE: 2009/08/06::
3
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2013/01/15::
4
What is "Res Ipsa Loquitur" and How Can It Affect Your New York Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?
What is "Res Ipsa Loquitur" and How Can It Affect Your New York Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?
DATE: 2012/04/28::
5
Career Girls: Federal Judge "Res Ipsa Loquitur "
Career Girls: Federal Judge "Res Ipsa Loquitur "
DATE: 2011/05/18::
6
Tort Law: Breach II - Special Situations & Res Ipsa Loquitur
Tort Law: Breach II - Special Situations & Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2014/03/25::
7
Clovis - Res Ipsa Loquitur
Clovis - Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2011/12/15::
8
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2012/03/10::
9
Tort Law tutorial: Negligence Per Se & Res Ipsa Loquitur | quimbee.com
Tort Law tutorial: Negligence Per Se & Res Ipsa Loquitur | quimbee.com
DATE: 2013/09/25::
10
Jesus - Res ipsa loquitur (the thing Speaks for Itself)
Jesus - Res ipsa loquitur (the thing Speaks for Itself)
DATE: 2013/03/04::
11
What is Res Ipsa Loquitur? NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Gerry Oginski Explains
What is Res Ipsa Loquitur? NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Gerry Oginski Explains
DATE: 2011/10/02::
12
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2012/09/19::
13
Gray Cat espies a squirrel in a tree — through Google Glass
Gray Cat espies a squirrel in a tree — through Google Glass
DATE: 2013/11/30::
14
Torts lecture: Res Ipsa Loquitur | quimbee.com
Torts lecture: Res Ipsa Loquitur | quimbee.com
DATE: 2013/11/27::
15
res ipsa loquitur
res ipsa loquitur
DATE: 2014/12/27::
16
Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur
DATE: 2009/10/08::
17
Tempus Fugit. Tabula rasa. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Circulus et Prune.
Tempus Fugit. Tabula rasa. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Circulus et Prune.
DATE: 2015/05/21::
18
David Sheehan on Res ipsa loquitur in Farsi
David Sheehan on Res ipsa loquitur in Farsi
DATE: 2014/04/14::
19
The Telegraph Salesmen - Res Ipsa Loquitur
The Telegraph Salesmen - Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2014/03/14::
20
Pork Chops As Shoes Down Under - Res Ipsa Loquitur 9mins18secs
Pork Chops As Shoes Down Under - Res Ipsa Loquitur 9mins18secs
DATE: 2010/12/29::
21
USLegalWriting.com/blog - Post: "Res Ipsa Loquitur" Forever? I Hope Not.
USLegalWriting.com/blog - Post: "Res Ipsa Loquitur" Forever? I Hope Not.
DATE: 2011/02/04::
22
Res Ipsa Loquitur 😄👍🙌👌
Res Ipsa Loquitur 😄👍🙌👌
DATE: 2015/06/14::
23
Unit 731 - False Idols
Unit 731 - False Idols
DATE: 2012/10/12::
24
Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur
DATE: 2009/09/20::
25
Res ipsa loquitur Meaning
Res ipsa loquitur Meaning
DATE: 2015/04/12::
26
How to Core a Head of Iceberg Lettuce in 3 Seconds
How to Core a Head of Iceberg Lettuce in 3 Seconds
DATE: 2012/05/29::
27
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2011/08/02::
28
How to Pronounce Res Ipsa Loquitur
How to Pronounce Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2014/06/18::
29
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur
DATE: 2006/04/06::
30
Joni Mitchell - A Case of You (live 1974)
Joni Mitchell - A Case of You (live 1974)
DATE: 2011/10/03::
31
Res Ipsa Loquitor - no worries
Res Ipsa Loquitor - no worries
DATE: 2011/08/31::
32
Tort Law tutorial  Negligence Per Se & Res Ipsa Loquitur   quimbee com
Tort Law tutorial Negligence Per Se & Res Ipsa Loquitur quimbee com
DATE: 2015/06/06::
33
Unit 731- Constricted
Unit 731- Constricted
DATE: 2011/04/19::
34
Barack Obama To Little Girl: America
Barack Obama To Little Girl: America's Not So Great
DATE: 2008/08/07::
35
2012 ABA Battle of the Bands - Res Ipsa Loquitor - "Damn Fine Day"
2012 ABA Battle of the Bands - Res Ipsa Loquitor - "Damn Fine Day"
DATE: 2012/03/08::
36
Primary Colors - Trailer
Primary Colors - Trailer
DATE: 2011/04/18::
37
Blatant Harrassment and Intimidation performed by the Claremore Police, OK, Res ipsa loquitur!!
Blatant Harrassment and Intimidation performed by the Claremore Police, OK, Res ipsa loquitur!!
DATE: 2015/03/07::
38
WAG THE DOG - Trailer - (1997) - HQ
WAG THE DOG - Trailer - (1997) - HQ
DATE: 2009/01/25::
39
Junior Boys - Banana Ripple (STAY + Remix) formerly Christian AIDS
Junior Boys - Banana Ripple (STAY + Remix) formerly Christian AIDS
DATE: 2011/08/06::
40
Unit 731-Fostering our fears
Unit 731-Fostering our fears
DATE: 2010/10/11::
41
Homemade Coffee Roaster Homemade Movie
Homemade Coffee Roaster Homemade Movie
DATE: 2015/03/01::
42
LA ACTIVIDAD PROBATORIA EN LA RESPONSABILIDAD CIVIL - DR. OMAR SUMARIA BENAVENTE
LA ACTIVIDAD PROBATORIA EN LA RESPONSABILIDAD CIVIL - DR. OMAR SUMARIA BENAVENTE
DATE: 2014/08/23::
43
GTA V RANDOM CHAOS NO MODS
GTA V RANDOM CHAOS NO MODS
DATE: 2015/05/28::
44
Six Gun Jury - Stars in the Rain
Six Gun Jury - Stars in the Rain
DATE: 2012/08/05::
45
How to Pronounce Res Ipsa Loquitor
How to Pronounce Res Ipsa Loquitor
DATE: 2014/06/18::
46
Six Gun Jury - All Alone in Rock
Six Gun Jury - All Alone in Rock 'n Roll
DATE: 2012/08/05::
47
Unit 731 - Lost In Thought
Unit 731 - Lost In Thought
DATE: 2011/01/09::
48
Unit 731 - Blind Obedience
Unit 731 - Blind Obedience
DATE: 2010/12/03::
49
When Do We NOT Need a Medical Expert in a New York Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?
When Do We NOT Need a Medical Expert in a New York Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?
DATE: 2013/11/17::
50
The Problem with "Liberals"
The Problem with "Liberals"
DATE: 2010/10/21::
NEXT >>
RESULTS [51 .. 101]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury, in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence, which are duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach, and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

History[edit]

Latin phrase[edit]

The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself."[1] The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech Pro Milone.[2][3] The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent 52 BC, some 1,915 years before Byrne v Boadle, as well as the question whether Chief Baron Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case.[4]

Leading case[edit]

The legal doctrine was first formulated by Baron Pollock in the 1863 English case Byrne v Boadle.[5]

Elements of res ipsa loquitur[edit]

  1. The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
  2. The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
  3. The injury-causing accident is not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
  4. Defendant’s non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff’s injury.

The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways: (a) The injury itself is sufficient to prove blatant or "palpable" negligence as a matter of law. e.g. amputation of the wrong limb, leaving instruments inside body after surgery. (b) The general experience and observation of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury would not have resulted without negligence. e.g. A hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) was performed when the patient consented only to a tubal ligation (clipping of the fallopian tubes for purposes of sterilization). (c) Expert testimony creates an inference that negligence caused the injury. e.g. An expert general surgeon testifies that he has performed over one thousand appendectomies (removal of the appendix) and has never caused injury to a patient's liver. He also does not know of any of his surgeon colleagues having inflicted injury to a patient's liver during an appendectomy. This testimony would create an inference that injuring the liver in the course of an appendectomy is negligence.

The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.

The exclusive control requirement[edit]

The common law traditionally required that "the instrumentality or agent which caused the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendant." See e.g., Eaton v. Eaton, 575 A2d 858 (NJ 1990). However, the Second and Third versions of the Restatement of Torts eliminated this strict requirement, because it can be difficult to prove "exclusive control." Accordingly, this element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation: that the evidence eliminates, to a sufficient degree, other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of control must be such that the likelihood of injury was, more likely than not, the result of the defendant's negligence. The likelihood of other possibilities do not need to be eliminated altogether but they must be so reduced that the greater probability lies with the defendant.

For a fictitious example of the exclusive control rule:

  • John Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly.
  • Jane's Corporation built, and is responsible for maintaining, the elevator.
  • Doe sues Jane, and during the proceedings, Jane claims that Doe's complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved, or for that matter even offered, a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Jane, there is no evidence that they were at fault.
  • The court holds that Doe does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself.
    • The elevator evidently malfunctioned (it was not intended to fall nor is that a proper function of a correctly functioning elevator).
    • Jane was responsible for the elevator in every respect
    • So Jane's Corporation is responsible for the fall.
  • The thing speaks for itself: no further explanation is needed to establish the prima facie case.

In some cases a closed group of people may be held in breach of a duty of care under the rule of res ipsa loquitur. In Ybarra v. Spangard,[6] a patient undergoing surgery experienced back complications as a result of the surgery, but it could not be determined exactly which member of the surgical team had breached his or her duty, and so it was held that they had all breached, because it was certain that at least one of them was the only person who was in exclusive control of the instrumentality of harm.

In jurisdictions that employ this less rigid formulation of exclusive control, this element subsumes the element that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury. In modern case law, contributory negligence is compared to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% of the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, then the plaintiff's slight fault cannot negate the negligence of the other. This new type of split liability is commonly called comparative negligence.

Typical in medical malpractice[edit]

Res ipsa loquitur often arises in the "scalpel left behind" variety of case. For example, a person goes to a doctor with abdominal pains after having his appendix removed. X-rays show the patient has a metal object the size and shape of a scalpel in his abdomen. It requires no further explanation to show the surgeon who removed the appendix was negligent, as there is no legitimate reason for a doctor to leave a scalpel in a body at the end of an appendectomy.

Contrast to prima facie[edit]

Res ipsa loquitur is often confused with prima facie ("at first sight"), the common law doctrine that a party must show some minimum amount of evidence before a trial is worthwhile.

The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need not explain any more. For example: "There is a prima facie case that the defendant is liable. They controlled the pump. The pump was left on and flooded the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff was away and had left the house in the control of the defendant. Res ipsa loquitur."

Examples by jurisdictions[edit]

Canada[edit]

In Canada the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been largely overturned by the Supreme Court. In case of Fontaine v. British Columbia (Official Administrator) [7] the Court rejected the use of res ipsa loquitur and instead proposed the rule that once the plaintiff has proven that the harm was under exclusive control of the defendant and that they were not contributorily negligent a tactical burden is placed on the defendant in which the judge has the discretion to infer negligence unless the defendant can produce evidence to the contrary.

Hong Kong[edit]

Hong Kong is one of the common law jurisdictions that use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Some lawyers prefer to avoid the expression res ipsa loquitur (for example, Hobhouse LJ in Radcliff v. Plymouth).[8] But other lawyers (and judges too) still find the expression a convenient one (for example, see the judgement of Mr Justice Bokhary, a Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, in Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong).[9]

The expression res ipsa loquitur is not a doctrine but a “mode of inferential reasoning” and applies only to accidents of unknown cause.[9][10] Res ipsa loquitur comes into play where an accident of unknown cause is one that would not normally happen without negligence on the part of the defendant in control of the object or activity which injured the plaintiff or damaged his property. In such a situation the court is able to infer negligence on the defendant's part unless he offers an acceptable explanation consistent with his having taken reasonable care.[9]

South Africa[edit]

In South African law (which is modelled on Roman Dutch Law), there is no doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, although the phrase is used regularly to mean the "facts speak for themselves." Res ipsa loquitur does not shift any burden of proof or onus from one party to the other. The phrase is merely a handy phrase used by lawyers.

United Kingdom[edit]

The doctrine exists in both English law and Scots law.

England and Wales[edit]

In English tort law, the effect of res ipsa loquitur is a strong inference in favour of the claimant that negligence has taken place. It does not however fully reverse the burden of proof (Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, 1988).[11]

The requirement of control is important in English law. This requirement was not satisfied in Easson v. LNE Ry [1944] 2 KB 421, where a small child fell off a train several miles after it had left the station. It was considered that the door of the train was not sufficiently under control of the railway company after the train started moving and could have been opened by somebody for whom the company was not responsible. This case was distinguished from the earlier Gee v. Metropolitan Ry[12] where the plaintiff fell from the train immediately after it left the station, when the door through which he fell could still be considered to be fully controlled by the railway company.

The requirement that the exact cause of the accident must be unknown is illustrated by the case of Barkway v. South Wales Transport.[13] In this case a bus veered across the road and it was known that the accident was caused by a flat tire. In this case, the plaintiff could not be assisted by res ipsa loquitur and had to go on to prove that the flat tire was caused by the transport company's negligence.

Scotland[edit]

The doctrine exists in the Scots law of delict. The leading case is that of Scott v London & Catherine Dock Co.[14] This case laid down 3 requirements for the doctrine to apply:

  1. There must be reasonable evidence of negligence
  2. The circumstances must be under the direct control of the defender or his servants
  3. The accident must be of such a type that would not occur without negligence.

In Scott, the court held that sacks of sugar do not fall out of warehouses and crush passers-by without somebody having been negligent along the way.

Recent examples in Scotland are McDyer v Celtic Football Club[15] and McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd.[16]

United States[edit]

Under United States common law, res ipsa loquitur has the following requirements:

  1. The event doesn't normally occur unless someone has acted negligently;
  2. The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party caused the injury; and
  3. The type of negligence in question falls with the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff.[17]

Most American courts recognize res ipsa loquitur. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328D describes a two step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur. The first step is whether the accident is the kind usually be caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident. If found, res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence, although in most cases it does not necessarily result in a directed verdict. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17, adopts a similar test, although it eschews the 'exclusive control' element.

The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v. Wright,[18] a seven-inch hemostat was left in Mrs. Gray during gall bladder surgery in June, 1947, and despite her chronic complaints about stomach pain over the years, the device was not found until an X-ray in March, 1953, when it was removed. Her $12,000 award was reversed by the Supreme Court of West Virginia because she was outside the statutes of limitation when she filed and could not prove that the doctor concealed knowledge of his error. This "guilty knowledge" requirement disappeared over the years, and the "discovery rule" by which statutes of limitation run from the date of discovery of the wrongdoing rather than the date of the occurrence has become the rule in most states, allowing res ipsa loquitur to take its rightful place.

Forty years later, leaving a medical device in a patient was medical malpractice, provable without expert testimony, in almost every jurisdiction.[19] Virginia has limited the rule. "In Virginia the doctrine, if not entirely abolished, has been limited and restricted to a very material extent." It may be utilized only when the circumstances of the incident, without further proof, are such that, in the ordinary course of events, the incident could not have happened except on the theory of negligence..."[20]

A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent."[21]

In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's criminal purpose,"[22] for example:

Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or which serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances

—Model Penal Code[22]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Translating "res ipsa loquitur"
  2. ^ Cic. Pro Milone 53
  3. ^ Jon R. Waltz; Fred Edward Inbau (1971). Medical jurisprudence. Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN 0-02-424430-9. 
  4. ^ http://officialinformationact.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/the-thing-speaks-for-itself-usually-but.html
  5. ^ Byrne v. Boadle Court of Exchequer, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863, retrieved 2009-03-16 
  6. ^ 93 Cal.App2d 43 (1949)
  7. ^ [1998] 1 S.C.R. 424
  8. ^ "PIQRP170", Ratcliffe v. Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority, 1998 
  9. ^ a b c "6 HKCFAR 207", Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong, 2003 
  10. ^ "200 CLR 121", Schellenberg v. Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd, 2000 
  11. ^ "298", Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, RTR, 1988 
  12. ^ "161", Gee v. Metropolitan Ry, LR QB, 1873 
  13. ^ "392", Barkway v. South Wales Transport, 1 All ER, 1950 
  14. ^ Scott v. London & Catherine Dock Co 3 H&C 596, 1865 
  15. ^ "379", McDyer v. Celtic Football Club, SC, 2000 
  16. ^ "211", McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd, SLT, 1995 
  17. ^ http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/res-ipsa-loquitur.html.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ Gray v. Wright 142 W. Va. 490, 96 S.E. 2d 671, 1957 
  19. ^ See Fieux v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Clinic, P.C., 159 Or. App. 637, 641, 978 P.2d 429, 433 (1999); Steinkamp v. Caremark, 3 S.W.3d 191, 198-99 (Tex. Civ. App. 1999); Baumgardner v. Yusuf, 144 Cal. App. 4th 1381, 1392, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1381, 1392 (2006); Fox v. Green, 161 N.C. App. 460, 465, 588 S.E. 2d 899, 904 (2003).
  20. ^ Lewis v. Carpenter Co., 252 Va. 296, 477 S.E.2d 492 (1996). See Virginia Legal Doctrines.
  21. ^ Bernard, Kirk. "California Metrolink Train Accident Caused By Engineer's Error". Seattle Injury Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2015. 
  22. ^ a b Frank Schmalleger, Criminal Law Today: An Introduction with Capstone Cases," p. 115, N. 29, citing Model Penal Code, § 5.01 (2).

External links[edit]

Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL License
Powered by YouTube
MASHPEDIA
LEGAL
  • Mashpedia © 2015