Res Ipsa Loquitur: Meaning, Essentials and Limitations | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• The Latin term "Res Ipsa Loquitur" translates to "the thing speaks for itself." This principle implies that the circumstances of an event are adequate to understand what has occurred. In legal terms, it allows plaintiffs to establish a presumption of negligence by showing that the harm wouldn't have happened without negligence, the object causing harm was under the defendant's control, and there are no other likely explanations. It serves as a prima facie case.
• According to Black's Law Dictionary, this maxim signifies that in certain situations, the mere occurrence of an accident suggests negligence, establishing a prima facie case. It represents the idea that an injury's occurrence alongside surrounding circumstances can imply negligence, creating a plaintiff's prima facie case for the defendant to address.

Case law regarding Res ipsa loquitur

Roe v. Minister of Health

• The plaintiff underwent a minor operation at the hospital where spinal anaesthetics were administered, leading to spastic paraplegia. The court attributed the injuries to phenol contamination in the anaesthetics stored in flawed ampoules.
• The plaintiff argued for the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur, suggesting that the hospital's negligence led to the injury.

Houghland v. R.R. LOW (luxury of coaches) Ltd.

• A passenger's suitcase entrusted to a bus company was lost during a journey due to the bus breaking down. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the burden was on the defendant to prove non-negligence, invoking Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Essentials to prove res ipsa loquitur

• The incident must be one that typically occurs due to negligence.
• The cause of the incident should be under the sole control of the defendant.
• The plaintiff should not have contributed to the cause of the incident.

Limitations on Res Ipsa Loquitur

• An injury occurring without the plaintiff's fault, such as certain slip-and-fall accidents, would fail the initial test, especially the third element.
• Maxim not applicable if different inferences are possible:
  • Res ipsa loquitur is relevant when the only logical conclusion from the evidence is that the incident could not have happened without the defendant's negligence.
  • In the case of Sk. Aliah Bakhas v. Dhirendra Nath, an auto rickshaw attempted to cross an unmanned level crossing as a train approached closely. The train collided with the rickshaw, injuring its occupants. The court found that the rickshaw driver's decision to cross the track with an approaching train clearly indicated negligence. In this situation, the presumption of negligence was valid. However, if an accident could be explained in multiple ways, this presumption would not apply.