ASSIGNMENT III – LAW OF TORTS

RIYA SINGH

19FLICDDNO1106

BBA.LLB (HONS) SEC B

QUES.4 EXPLAIN THE RULE OF 'RES IPSA LOQUITUR' WITH

ILLUSTRATION AND LIMITATIONS
Res ipsa loquitur is Latin, and when translated directly means the thing speaks for itself.
Under the common law of negligence, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine indicates that a breach of
a party's duty of care may be inferred from the events that occurred. In other words, the
negligence is so obvious that you can tell that someone had a negligent hand in what
happened. Basic negligence principles require that to prove a case, a party must owe a duty of
care and then breach the duty of care. In other words, if one is responsible or controls
something, such as property, that person is responsible for providing a reasonable amount of
care to make sure that the property is safe. When an accident happens, it could be that the
property owner breached his duty of care. However, with res ipsa loquitur, the breach is so
apparent that there is a presumption of the breach of duty and the plaintiff does not need to
provide extensive evidence, if any, of the breach. Thus, the negligence speaks for itself.
Moreover, the doctrine indicates that the inference of the negligence is so strong that it does
not matter if the harmed party behaved negligently. Again, here it's so obvious that there was
negligence (even if the injured person was acting in a negligent way themselves) it will not
matter; the negligence is presumed, regardless of these circumstances. In fact, the cases
frequently do not include actual evidence of how the harmed party acted whatsoever. The
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be used as a “rebuttal presumption” when a defendant
accused of negligently causing injury or damages asserts there is no proof of his involvement
or negligence. When an individual files a civil lawsuit seeking payment for damages caused
by the defendant’s negligence, he must prove to the judge or jury that:

 The defendant had a duty to perform in a certain manner

 The defendant breached that duty or performed negligently
 The defendant’s breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s damages

In the event the defendant denies having acted negligently, the plaintiff may, according to res
ipsa loquitur, rebut the defendant’s claim, pointing out that the incident could not have
occurred unless there was some negligence.

Examples of res ipsa can include an exploding vehicle tire or airbag while a car is traveling
down the freeway. In a case like this, with possible causes including tread separation,
aftermath such as vehicle rollover speaks for itself. In cases like exploding soda and beer
bottles, the bottling company would be the at-fault party-- as it speaks for itself.
LIMITATIONS

A case that hinges solely on res ipsa means that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury. If other factors may have
contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries, or those injuries are questioned, then they cannot collect
through the res ipsa rule.

Also, if the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff at the time of the injury, the
plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit based on res ipsa.

QUES. 5 WHAT IS MEANT BY 'CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE'?

HOW DOES IT ARISE? DISCUSS THE SCOPE OF THIS DOCTRINE.
Contributory negligence is a legal term used as a defence to suggest for example in a personal
injury claim the person who is injured is also partly to blame. Proving liability (or who is to
blame) in personal injury claims is always the first ‘hurdle’ to overcome. This means proving
that the Defendant is to blame for the accident. After a Defendant is notified of a claim they
have a period of time to investigate the allegations and then respond confirming their position
on this issue. They can respond in one of three ways:

 They could admit that they are fully at fault for the accident
 They could deny that they are at fault for the accident
 They could admit that they are partially at fault for the accident but also allege that the
Claimant is also partly to blame – these allegations are known as allegations of
contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence usually arises in a lawsuit in which a plaintiff has accused a

defendant of negligence. The defendant may then charge the plaintiff with contributory
negligence. At common law, if the defendant proves this charge by a preponderance of
evidence, the plaintiff cannot recover any damages—even if the defendant was negligent—
because the contributory negligence breaks the causal connection between defendant’s
negligence and plaintiff’s injury or loss. In English law since the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act (1945) and in many states in the United States, if the plaintiff is shown to
have contributed to the injury, recovery may still be allowed, but provision is made for an
equitable reduction of damages.