Legal Language

Topic: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Prepared by:
Mahek Raval
Introduction:
 Res Ipsa Loquitur a Latin phrase that means “the thing speaks for itself”
 Res Ipsa Loquitur is a maxim, the application of which shifts the burden of proof on the
defendant.
 Generally, in a case it is the plaintiff who has to provide evidence to prove the defendant’s
negligence.
 In personal injury law, the concept of res ipsa loquitur operates as an evidentiary rule.
 It allows plaintiffs to establish a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant through the use of circumstantial evidence.
 This means that, if the plaintiff puts forth certain circumstantial facts, it becomes the
defendant’s burden to prove he or she was not negligent.
 There is a presumption of negligence on part of the defendant and it is upto him to prove
his non-liability and that it was not his act which caused the plaintiff’s injury. The
defendant leads the evidence.
Essential Elements:
 The essential elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur are:
1. The defendant was in exclusive control of the situation or instrument that caused the injury;
2. The injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for the defendant’s negligence;
3. The plaintiff’s injury was not due to his own action or contribution.

 If these elements are met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that he was not
negligent.
Applicability
 Res Ipsa Loquitur can be applied in medical cases and several tort-feasors where the
plaintiff is not able to ascertain as to whose negligent act had caused his injury.
 Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply in cases where reasonable care has been taken and what
has happened is beyond the ordinary control of the defendant.
 Res Ipsa Loquitur finds its applicability in accident cases.
Example
 A person was driving car in outer lane. Suddenly the car crossed the central reservation and
clashed with a public bus traveling the inner lane, 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.
Case Law
 A. S. Mittal and ors. V. State of U.P. and ors. (manu/sc/0004/1989)
 The defendants had organized an eye camp. A cataract operations were undertaken during
the period of the camp.
 It was however, disastrous as many of those who had been operated upon lost their eye
sight due to post medical treatment.
 The decision was on the basis of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
 The court presume that if doctor was not negligent during the operation, this incident was
not happened. So in this case this maxim was apply and plaintiffs gets compensation.
Case Law
 Walsh v. Holst & co. Ltd.
 The occupier of premises adjoining the highway was carrying out works of reconstruction,
which involved knocking out large areas of the front wall.
 However, on one particular day one brick escaped the safety netting and hit a pedestrian
who proceeded against the defendants for the injury sustained on the basis of Res Ipsa
Loquitur.
 However, the defendants were able to establish that they were not negligent as they had
taken all care to ensure that in no way a road user is injured and what had happened was
beyond the ordinary control of the defendants.
 In this case Res Ipsa Loquitur was not applied because reasonable care has been taken and
situation was beyond defendant’s ordinary control.