BANASTHALI VIDYAPEETH

LEGAL ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT – I

(LAW106)
Submitted To – Ms Anubha Dwivedi Ma’am
Submitted By – Anshika Manishi
Course – B.A. LLB
Roll No. – 2113084
Email I’d – lwbli21230_anshika@banasthali.in
Topic – RES IPSA LOQUITOR
 RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Res Ipsa Loquitor is a legal term which means “the thing speaks for itself”. In the law of torts, to prove
somebody's negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It becomes really difficult to prove that the
defendant was at fault and also to gather evidence against his act or omission. If the plaintiff is not able
to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant cannot be made liable. So, the principle
of Res Ipsa Loquitor came into force under which a plaintiff can use circumstantial evidence to establish
negligence. This means that while plaintiffs 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 negligent.

Accidents happen all the time, and the mere fact that an accident has occurred doesn't necessarily
mean that someone's negligence caused it. In order to prove negligence in a personal injury lawsuit, a
plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's negligence resulted in the plaintiff's
injury. Sometimes, direct evidence of the defendant's negligence doesn't exist, but plaintiffs can still use
circumstantial evidence in order to establish negligence.

Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than

demonstrating it straight. This allows judges and juries to find negligence based on the totality of the
circumstances and the shared knowledge that arises out of human experience. Res ipsa is one type of
circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable fact finder to determine that the defendant's negligence
caused an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff.

ELEMENTS OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR:-

Before claiming the tort of Res Ipsa Loquitor, a plaintiff must meet a few requirements to claim
compensation

 The event that caused injury to the plaintiff does not occur unless someone has acted negligently.
 There should not be any possibilities of the fault of the plaintiff or third party.
 There is a duty of care of defendant towards the plaintiff which he breached.
 ESSENTIALS OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR:-
 Inference of negligence:- For the element of Res Ipsa Loquitor to be made applicable in any case, the
accident should be such as which could not have happened if ordinary course of things had
happened without negligence. 

 Control by the defendant:- The thing that has caused the damage must be under the direct control of
the defendant or his representative. It is not always necessary that all the circumstances are under
the defendant's control, but if the events leading up to the accidents were under the control of
others besides the defendant, then the mere happening of the accident is insufficient evidence
against the defendant.

 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 specific type of injury. 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.

 Freedom from Contributory Negligence:- The plaintiff or any third party did not cause or contribute to
the injuries suffered by him. If it is found that the plaintiff or third party contributed to the act
that caused damage to the plaintiff, then the principle will not be applicable.

Once these elements are established, there is a possibility that courts treat it as a possible
assumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. Normally, following this the jury in question
presumes that the defendant is liable. The jury, however, is not bound to presume such things. In
such cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant that he was not negligent. Thus this principle
is rebuttable and if the defendant can successfully rebut the claim of negligence, he will win the
case. Otherwise, he shall be made liable.
CASE-LAWS:-

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia:-

 Fact:-  In this case, a minor was admitted to a hospital, where the doctors examined the condition of the boy and found
that the boy is suffering from typhoid fever and appropriate medicines were prescribed for the same, the nurse asked the
father to bring the particular medicine (injection). Upon which the nurse injected the same to the boy, as soon as the boy
injected he became unconscious. After that, the doctor attended the patient and informed the family about the cardiac
arrest and the doctor manually tried to revive the heartbeat of the child. The child was shifted to another hospital and kept
in the intensive care unit (ICU). After careful examination, the doctor declared that the condition of the boy is critical as
irreparable damage has been caused to the brain and there was no chance of the recovery. After release from the referred
hospital, the doctors of the first hospital offered to admit the child and they will try to recover the boy’s health. The
complaint has been filed against the hospital for being negligent on their part.
 The issue raised:- The issue raised in this case was that, whether the parents of the child who was admitted in the
hospital can be recognized as consumers so that they can claim compensation under the provision of the consumer
protection act? Does the commission is entitled to pay compensation to the child’s parents for the mental agony, and do
the parents of the child come under the definition of the consumer under section 2(1)(d)?
 The Supreme Court held:- It was held that as the young child went to the hospital with his parents and was being
treated by the doctors, therefore the parents of the child come under the definition of the consumer, and the child would
also become a consumer. Thus the hospital has to compensate them for being negligent on their part and for negligence in
providing the services.