res ipsa loquitur
In negligence the plaintiff normally has to prove the defendant's want of care. The maxim lets the court infer negligence where (1) the thing that caused harm was under the defendant's management or control, (2) the accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen if proper care is taken, and (3) the true cause is not known to the plaintiff. Examples: a swab left in the abdomen after surgery, or a bag of flour falling from a warehouse window (Byrne v. Boadle, 1863).
It is a rule of evidence, not a separate tort. It shifts the burden to the defendant to explain how the accident could have happened without his negligence. If the facts are known and fully proved, the maxim has no place. In Syad Akbar the Supreme Court held that in criminal cases it is at most a guide to inference, and the prosecution's burden does not shift.
Example
A pair of scissors was found in the patient's abdomen after the surgery; res ipsa loquitur placed the burden on the hospital to explain.
In Indian law
- Byrne v. Boadle (English, Court of Exchequer, 1863)
- Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1979 INSC 126: maxim in criminal cases
See also
negligence · medical negligence · burden of proof · duty of care
Read more in the study notes
- Negligence (Law of Torts)
- Nuisance (Law of Torts)