Viscount Simonds said: ‘Before the liability of a defendant to pay damages for the tort of negligence can be established in an action brought by or on behalf of an injured man, three things have to be proved – (1) that the defendant failed to exercise due care; (2) that the defendant owed to the injured man a duty to exercise due care; and (3) that the defendant’s failure was the ’cause’ of the injury in the proper sense of the term.’
. . And as to the position where an individual was the defendant and the plaintiff sought to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: ‘I will assume against him, though I doubt whether the assumption is justified that this is a case in which the principle of res ipsa loquitur may be applied. But to apply this principle is to do no more than shift the burden of proof. A prima facie case is assumed to be made out which throws upon him the task of proving that he was not negligent. This does not mean that he must prove how and why the accident happened: it is sufficient if he satisfies the court that he personally was not negligent. It may well be that the court will be more easily satisfied of this fact if a plausible explanation which attributes the accident to some other cause is put forward on his behalf; but this is only a factor in the consideration of the probabilities.’
Judges:
Viscount Simonds
Citations:
[1946] AC 401, [1946] 1 All ER 420
Cited by:
Cited – Devine v Colvilles Ltd HL 11-Mar-1969
The House considered the position of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir. The plaintiff had been injured falling or jumping from a raised platform.
Held: The claim succeeded. ‘ I hold it proved that there was a general panic. Now the defenders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Evidence
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554760
