ABSTRACT
The Latin maxim “Res Ipsa Loquitur” means “the object speaks for itself.” This doctrine is highly well-liked in tort law. The maxim is employed in situations where the evidence is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt on its own. As a result, the adage draws attention to any indirect evidence or tangible proof that an act has been performed. It demonstrates that the accident would not have occurred if the defendant had not been careless. The plaintiff, or the person who was harmed by the tort, has the burden of proving someone else’s carelessness under tort law. It becomes extremely difficult to establish the defendant’s guilt and to acquire evidence to support his actions or inactions. The defendant cannot be held accountable if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate the defendant’s fault. Thus, the Res Ipsa Loquitor concept came into effect, allowing a plaintiff to prove negligence through circumstantial evidence.
LORD WENSLEYDALE held in the matter of Morgan v. Sim, (1857) 11 Moo P.C. 307, 312 that the party claiming damages must demonstrate that the party his complaint is directed at was at fault. He must demonstrate that the damage may be ascribed to the other party’s carelessness, and that is his burden of evidence. If, in the end, he leaves the matter on an even footing and is unable to persuade the court that the other party’s carelessness or failure was to blame, he will not prevail.
The maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur is employed when the proof, evidence, or object of an accident directly points out the defendant’s culpability and demonstrates that the defendant was the accident’s cause. This maxim cannot be applied in such circumstances since the mere existence of the accident does not establish the defendant’s culpability. It is not a law but a rule of evidence.
Applicability :
The maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in situations like:
- The cause of the accident was under the management or control of the defendant
- The accident is such as in the ordinary course of things and would not happen if those who have the management use proper care
In the cases where this maxim is used, the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant and then the defendant has to disprove the accusations made upon him.
Relative history of Res Ipsa Loquitur
The direct translation of this Latin maxim, which literally means “the thing speaks for itself,” is “the thing speaks for itself.” According to established traditions, Cicero originally used this term in his defence speech for Milone. Byrne v. Boadle is the first instance of this phrase’s use in common law history. The plaintiff’s head was struck by a barrel of flour that fell from a two-story building in England in 1863, but the plaintiff was unable to get direct proof against the defendant to claim carelessness on his side. However, the court upheld the plaintiff’s claim and stated that because of the unique facts of this case, there may be a presumption of carelessness.
Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Presence of Carelessness:
The accident must have been such that it could not have occurred if ordinary events had taken place without negligence for the element of Res Ipsa Loquitor to be considered relevant in any situation. For example, if the party is adequately diligent, a barrel of flour cannot accidentally fall on someone’s head, as it did in the Byrne v. Boadle case.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966, a number of people perished as a result of the fall of the clock tower, which was located across from the town hall in Chandni Chowk main bazaar. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi owned and had complete authority over the clock tower. Although the building was 80 years old, the top storey’s collapsed structure had a standard lifespan of 40 to 45 years depending on the type of mortar employed.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s carelessness can be inferred from the fact that the Clock Tower fell. The defendants were held accountable because they were unable to establish that they had not been negligent. The defendants will, of course, be held accountable for the same under this concept if a clock tower that is in the middle of the city collapses and injures numerous people. Direct evidence of negligence is not necessary in these situations, but the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case that the defendant was negligent—either via direct or circumstantial evidence.
Control by the Defendant:
The event that resulted in the harm must be directly under the defendant’s or his agent’s control. It is not always required for the defendant to have control over all the circumstances, but if the actions leading up to the incidents were in the hands of someone else instead of the defendant, then the accident alone is not enough to convict the defendant. In the 1996 case of Nihal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh, scissors were left within a patient’s body while they were being operated on. Then, when his illness got worse, he passed away. After cremation, scissors were discovered among the ashes. The defendants of the dead were given compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,20,000.
Freedom from Contributory Negligence:
The third requirement for the concept is that neither the plaintiff nor any other party caused or contributed to the harm that the plaintiff experienced. The principle will not apply if it is shown that the plaintiff or a third party helped to commit the crime that resulted in the plaintiff’s damages. In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan, 1981, two buses collided in such a way that two passengers in one of them had their left hands severed below the shoulder joint as a result. It was decided that the collision itself is quite telling regarding the carelessness of both drivers.
Non Application of the Maxim:
When the sole conclusion to be drawn from the circumstances is that the accident would not have happened but for the defendant’s carelessness, the maxim “res ipsa loquitur” is applicable. The rule does not apply where there are conflicting possibilities for inference or when it is unclear what caused the carelessness. In K. Sobha v. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan, 1999, the 35-year-old plaintiff, who was the mother of an 8-year-old boy, sought advice from the defendant, a gynaecologist, over the failure to conceive a second child. She was instructed to test tubing to clear any potential fallopian tube obstructions. With the plaintiff’s permission, the necessary was accomplished by a quick process that involved blowing air into the vagina while applying regulated pressure. The plaintiff’s reproductive system then developed an infection, which needed to be removed. There was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was negligent in any way that may have led to the infection. But the infection’s origin remained a mystery. As a result, it was determined that the case did not include res ipsa loquitur since the case’s facts did not support the inference of carelessness.
In the 1999 case R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sagar Bai, there was an accident that was said to have happened as a result of the bus’s technical breakdown. There didn’t seem to be any proof that the bus driver was careless. According to the ruling, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine could not be used in this situation and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation could only be held accountable if carelessness was proven.
Conclusion
In all prima facie circumstances, when the defendant’s carelessness is immediately apparent and without which the damage would not have occurred, Res Ipsa Loquitur is therefore most often utilised. In this situation, the defendant must provide evidence to dispel the presumption that he was careless. The adage, which has to do with negligence, is typically employed in situations when a person’s negligence resulted in the conduct.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable in circumstances of medical malpractice and auto accidents where injury is brought on by one or both parties’ fault. As a result, the use of res ipsa loquitur immediately establishes the defendant’s act and aids in establishing liability.
This article is written by KAMAL, Faculty of Law, University of DELHI, LL.B-3rd year during his internship at LeDroit India.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN LEDROIT‘S WHATSAPP GROUP
