INTRODUCTION

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that means "the thing speaks for itself." In personal injury
law, the concept of res ipsa loquitur operates as an evidentiary rule that allows plaintiffs to establish
a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant through the use of
circumstantial evidence. This means that while plantiffs typically have to prove that the defendant
acted with a negligent state of mind, through res ipsa loquitur, if the plaintiff puts forth certain
circumstantial facts, it becomes the defendant's burden to prove he or she was not negligent1. This
certainly means that if defendant commits a wrongful act and it is of such a degree that for plaintiff
there is no need to prove that an act has been committed by defendant. This maxim can be helpful
when there is no evidence to prove the act. For e.g. if a doctor leaves towel into the stomach of
plaintiff then for plaintiff there is no need to give evidence because the thing speaks for itself.

EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Establishes the Basis for a Permissive Inference of Negligence by the Jury. Where the
plaintiff presents a res ipsa loquitur case, what effect is to be given it? The view which
seems to prevail in the greater number of jurisdictions is that a res ipsa case merely lays
the foundation for a permissible inference by the jury of negligence on the part of the
defendant. The proof of the accident and the injury, with attending circumstances though
there is no direct evidence of the defendant's negligence or causal relation to the injury
entitles the plaintiff to go to the jury. A motion for a non-suit the plaintiff or a directed
verdict for the defendant will be denied. If the defendant does not introduce any evidence
to overcome the case made for the plaintiff, the plaintiff will be entitled to have the jury
consider under proper instructions whether or not the facts shown warrant them in making
the inference that the defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injury. If
the jury finds for the plaintiff that the defendant was guilty of such negligence the verdict
of the jury cannot be disturbed. Under this view the plaintiff will not be entitled to a directed
verdict on the failure of the defendant to introduce evidence.

1
Res Ipsa Loquitur, FindLaw (10/2/2017 8:03 pm) http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/res-ipsa-
loquitur.html.
 Establishes a Presumption of Negligence. In several states, a res ipsa loquitur case is
given the effect of raising a presumption. This means that the res ipsa case lays the
foundation not merely for the jurys possible inference of negligence on the part of
defendant, but the jury will be required by the court to make such inference. If the plaintiff
makes out a res ipsa loquitur case and the defendant does not assume his burden of going
forward with the evidence, the court it is satisfied that the plaintiffs evidence so clearly
establishes a res ipsa loquitur case that a jury could not reasonably find otherwise, will
direct a verdict for the plaintiff. If the court is not so certain that a res ipsa case that has
been made out, it will leave it to jury to find if such a case exists and if such is found, a
verdict will be directed for the plaintiff. Frequently the language of the court points toward
a presumption, but the effect in fact given to the res ipsa loquitur case is merely to permit
an inference of negligence.
What is the quantum of evidence required of defendant to overcome the presumption when
such is raised by a res ipsa loquitur case? It should be borne in mind that in such a case the
probative effect or logical cogency of the plaintiffs case before the defendant introduces
any evidence is one which would warrant the jury finding for the plaintiff, though it might,
of course, find for the defendant. The cases are uniform in requiring for the application of
the res ipsa loquitur case a setup from which it is reasonably inferable that the injury would
not have happened without negligence on the part of defendant. It seems clear that the
defendant ought not to escape a directed verdict against him by merely introducing some
evidence. It should at least be credible and have some probative force. As to how much,
there is little or no indication in the cases.2

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the project is to

1. study res ipsa loquitur.

2. How it is applicable.

2
Charles E. Carpanter, The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Chicago Unbound (10/03/2017, 8:18),
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=uclrev.
 3. How it is useful to plaintiff to get compensation from defendant,
4. its background.
5. how it is connected with negligence and what are its elements.
6. It will also be searched that how it came into existence and how it is applicable in present
scenario.

HYPOTHESIS
1. How res ipsa loquitur works.
2. What are its implications in tort show plaintiff will benefit from it because of the
negligence of defender, and
3. its elements.

RESEARCH QUESTION
1. Define Res Ipsa Loquitur and when does it apply?
2. What is role of Negligence in Res ipsa loquitur?
3. Why there is no need of proving wrong in res ipsa loquitur?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research is based on the doctrinal method of research which is related to library work.

CHAPTERIZATION
BACKGROUND

Accidents happen all the time and many a time, it is because of someones negligence. And in
the law of torts, to prove somebodys negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, that is,
someone who is the victim of the tort. It becomes really difficult to prove that the defendant was
at fault and also to gather evidence against his act or omission. Therefore, keeping this in mind,
the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur came into force under which a plaintiff can use circumstantial
evidence to establish negligence.
Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather
than demonstrating it outright. Rather than directly proving a defendant's negligence,
circumstantial evidence allows judges and juries to infer negligence based on the totality of the
circumstances and the shared knowledge that arises out.

This doctrine came into existence after an English case, Byrne vs Boadle, facts are Byrne
(plaintiff) alleged that as he was passing along a highway in front of a building owned by Boadle
(defendant), he was struck and badly injured by a barrel of flour that was being lowered from a
window above. Byrne brought suit against Boadle, a dealer of flour, for negligence. The trial
court found no evidence of Boadles negligence, and granted judgment for Boadle. On appeal,
Byrne argued that the presumption is that Boadles servants were handling the flour when it fell
and injured Byrne, and if they were not, Boadle has the burden of proving this. The court of
appeals held for Byrne, and Boadle appealed.3

As it has developed since then, res ipsa allows judges and juries to apply common sense to a
situation in order to determine whether or not the defendant acted negligently.

NEGLIGENCE
Probably one of the most common types of personal injury lawsuits involves a claim of
negligence. Negligence describes a situation in which a person acts in a careless (or "negligent")
manner, which results in someone else getting hurt or property being damaged. Negligence can
often be a difficult area of law to define because it involves a legal analysis of the elements of
negligence as they relate to the facts of a particular case.

An Overview of Negligence

The law of negligence requires individuals to conduct themselves in a way that conforms to
certain standards of conduct. If a person doesn't conform to that standard, the person can be held
liable for harm he or she causes to another person or property. Sometimes the standard of
conduct requires a person to act, so it's possible for the omission of an act to give rise to a
negligence claim. In order to prove that a defendant was negligent, a plaintiff must prove the
elements of negligence. The elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

3
Byrne v. Boadle, Quimbee,( 10/5/2017, 8:50 pm http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu.
Although this seems fairly straightforward, proving these elements involves a lot of legal
knowledge and analysis.

Proving a Negligence Case

The first step of proving a negligence case is determining whether or not the defendant owed the
plaintiff a duty. Generally, determining if the defendant owed a duty will depend on the
circumstances surrounding the injury. For example, a driver owes a duty to other drivers on the
road. Basically, that driver owes a duty to drive like a reasonable person. Whether or not a
defendant had a duty to the plaintiff is a question of law that is ordinarily determined by the
judge.

The next step is showing that the defendant breached his or her duty to the plaintiff. Generally
speaking, a defendant breaches his or her duty by not exercising reasonable care in fulfilling the
duty. For example, a driver that drives too fast is breaching his or duty to drive as a reasonable
person. Whether or not a defendant breached his or her duty is a question of fact that is decided
by the jury.

The third element of a negligence case that a plaintiff must prove is causation. Some people split
causation into two separate elements: causation in fact and proximate causation. If you choose to
leave both as one element, you still need to address both. Cause in fact is a simple test: "but for"
the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause, however,
is a little more complicated because it relates to the scope of a defendant's responsibility.
Basically, the scope of responsibility depends on if the harm to the plaintiff could have been
foreseen by the defendant. In the event that the harm could not have been foreseen, the plaintiff
fails to prove the element of proximate causation, and the defendant will not be liable for the
injuries.

The final element a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail in a personal injury case based on a
claim of negligence is damages. Damages refer to a legally recognized harm, which is usually
physical injury or property damage. Basically, the defendant's breach of duty must have caused
actual damages to the plaintiff in order for a negligence claim to succeed.4

4
Negligence, FindLaw (10/05/2017, 9:15pm), http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/negligence.html.
ELEMENTS OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Since the laws of personal injury and evidence are determined at the state level, the law
regarding res ipsa loquitur varies slightly between states. That said, a general consensus has
emerged, and most states follow one basic formulation of res ipsa.

Under this model for res ipsa, there are three requirements that the plaintiff must meet before a
jury can infer that the defendant's negligence caused the harm in question:

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.

The Presence of Negligence

As mentioned above, not all accidents occur because of someone else's negligence. Some
accidents, on the other hand, almost never occur unless someone has acted negligently.

Going back to the old case of the falling flour-barrel, it's a piece of shared human knowledge that
things don't generally fall out of warehouse windows unless someone hasn't taken care to block
the window or hasn't ensured that items on the warehouse floor are properly stored. When
something does fall out of a warehouse window, the law will assume that it happened because
someone was negligent.

Only the Defendant Is Responsible

The second component of a res ipsa case hinges on whether the defendant carries sole
responsibility for the injury. If the plaintiff can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant's negligence cause the injury, then they will not be able to recover under res ipsa.

States sometimes examine whether the defendant had exclusive control over the specific
instrumentality that caused the accident in order to determine if the defendant's negligence
caused the injury. For example, if a surgeon leaves a sponge inside the body of a patient, a jury
can infer that the surgeon's negligence caused the injury since he had exclusive control over the
sponges during the operation.

The Defendant Owes the Plaintiff a Duty of Care

In addition to the first two elements, the defendant must also owe a duty of care to protect the
plaintiff from the type of injury at issue in the suit. If the defendant does not have such a duty, or
if the type of injury doesn't fall within the scope of that duty, then there is no liability.

For example, in many states, landowners don't owe trespassers any duty to protect them against
certain types of dangers on their property. Thus, even if a trespasser suffers an injury that was
caused by the defendant's action or inaction and that wouldn't normally occur in the absence of
negligence, res ipsa loquitur won't establish negligence since the landowner never had any
responsibility to prevent injury to the trespasser in the first place.5

CONCLUSION
In Res Ipsa Loquitur, the defendant will lead evidence. There is a two step process to
establishing Res Ipsa Loquitur-

1. Whether the accident is the kind that would usually be caused by negligence.

2. 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.

Res Ipsa Loquitur finds its applicability in a variety of situations. In the United States it is mostly
applied in cases of commercial airplane accidents and road and traffic accidents.

5
Supra note1
It is applied primarily in all prima facie cases, where at first instance the negligence on part of
the defendant is evident and without which the injury would not have occurred. In such a case, it
is presumed that the defendant is negligent and it is upto him to prove why he is not negligent.

Generally, it is applied in cases of medical negligence where it cannot be ascertained as to which

specific act of the hospital had caused the injury and where the situation is never outside the
control of the hospitals.

BIBLOGRAPHY
1. Bangia Rk, Law of Torts
2. Singh G.P., Law of Torts

WEBSITES
1. http://injury.findlaw.com
2. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu
3. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu
 RES IPSA LOQUITUR

(Project report)

Submitted to: Mr. Pratyush Kaushik

Faculty Member in Legal Language and Communications Skills

Submitted by: Saket Ratnu

BA LLB (HONS.) Student

Semester 1, Section A, Roll No.: 1758

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Mithapur, Patna 800001