Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co

[1865] 3 H&C 596

TORT – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Facts

The claimant was a dockworker who was injured when large, heavy bags of sugar fell
from the defendant’s crane and hit him. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort
of negligence. 

Issue

Establishing negligence involves establishing that the defendant breached their duty
of care to the claimant. To establish breach, the claimant must establish that the
defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.

Here, the claimant could not prove what had happened to cause the sugar bags to
fall, making it difficult to prove that the defendant had breached their duty. The issue
was whether a claimant can establish negligence if they cannot prove what the
defendant did to cause the harm.

Held

The High Court held that a finding of liability was possible in this case.

The court relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (literally ‘the thing speaks for
itself’). This doctrine holds that if the defendant was in control of a situation, and an
accident occurs which would not normally occur in the absence of carelessness of
some kind but the cause of the accident is unknown, the burden of proof shifts to
the defendant to adduce evidence that he was not negligent. If he cannot, a breach
of duty will be made out. If he can, the court must assess this evidence to determine
whether it is still reasonable to presume negligence.

Byrne v Boadle

Facts[edit]
A barrel of flour fell from a second-story loft[1] and hit the plaintiff on his head. Though there were
two witnesses who saw the injury, there were no witnesses as to how the barrel fell out and hit
the plaintiff. Under these conditions, the plaintiff was not required to provide direct evidence as to
whether the person responsible for the barrel had breached his duty of care.
Judgment[edit]
Initially, in the lower court the case was non-suited through a direct verdict because the plaintiff
could provide no evidence. Subsequently the appellate court concluded that under the
conditions, the fact of the accident itself provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish
the breach of a duty of care. Baron Pollock said the following.

“
I think it would be wrong to lay down as a rule that in no case can a presumption of
negligence arise from the fact of an accident. Suppose in this case the barrel had rolled
out of the warehouse and fallen on the plaintiff how could he possibly ascertain from
what cause it occurred? It is the duty of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to
take care that they do not roll out, and I think that such a case would, beyond all doubt,
afford prima facie evidence of negligence. A barrel could not roll out of a warehouse
without some negligence, and to say that a plaintiff who is injured by it must call
witnesses from the warehouse to prove negligence seems to me preposterous.

The present case upon the evidence comes to this, a man is passing in front of the
premises of a dealer in flour, and there falls down upon him a barrel of flour. I think it
apparent that the barrel was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the
premises, and who is responsible for the acts of his servants who had the control of it;
and in my opinion the fact of its falling is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the
plaintiff who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could not fall without
negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with negligence it is for the defendant
to prove them.

Barkway v South Wales Transport [1950] AC

185
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Facts

The claimant was injured when a bus drove off the road because of a latent,
undetectable defect in the tyre that made it burst. There was evidence that the bus
company ought to have made drivers report impacts which could cause this sort of
defect, and had not done so. The claimant sued the defendant bus company in the
tort of negligence.

Issue

To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant breached their duty
of care: that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their
position.

Where it is not possible for the claimant to prove exactly what the accident’s cause
was, the court will presume breach if the defendant was in control of the situation
and the accident was not one which normally occurs without carelessness. This is the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The issue in this case was what the doctrine means when it requires the cause of the
accident to be unknown.

Held

The House of Lords held that this was not a case where the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur applied.

The House of Lords held that doctrine required the cause of the accident to be
completely unknown. It was not applicable in a case where all the facts relating to the
accident are known and the judge is merely being asked to decide between two or
more competing interpretations of events.

In this case, all the relevant facts as to how the accident arose were known, and the
judge was merely asked to decide whether the defendant’s reporting policies were
negligent and could have prevented the harm. As such, the claimant retained the
burden of proving negligence as usual. 

Ng Chun Pui v. Lee Chuen Tat [5]

The first defendant was driving a coach owned by the second defendant westwards in the outer lane
of dual carriageway in Hong Kong. Suddenly the coach crossed the central reservation and collided
with a public bus traveling in the inner lane of the other carriageway, killing one passenger in the bus
and injuring the driver and three others on the bus. The plaintiffs could not prove that the defendants
were negligent and had caused the accident. They however proceeded on the basis of Res Ipsa
Loquitur and shifted the onus on the defendants to prove that they were not negligent. However, they
failed to do so. And the judicial committee of the Privy Council held the defendants liable for the
plaintiff’s injuries.