A bus had left the road and crashed as a result of a tyre burst. In stating how the defendant could discharge the onus of proof the Lord Justice said: ‘To displace the presumption [of negligence] the defendants must . . prove (or it must emerge from the evidence as a whole) either (a) that the burst itself was due to a specific cause which does not connote negligence on their part but points to its absence as more probable, or (b) if they can point to no such specific cause, that they used all reasonable care in and about the management of their tyres.’
There is a certain ‘artificiality [in] describing a witness whose evidence is taken down and embodied in a transcript as a person ‘making a statement in a document”. Where there is direct evidence as to what occurred there is no need to rely upon inferences.
Judges:
Asquith LJ
Citations:
[1949] 1 KB 54, [1950] 1 All ER 392
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Barkway v South Wales Transport HL 1950
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be used where the judge has presented to him alternate versions of the facts and his job is to decide between them.
Lord Radcliffe said that an event which in the ordinary course of things is more . .
Cited – Smith v Fordyce and Another CA 10-Apr-2013
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries from a road accident. The respondent driver had crashed into a wall. The claimant had been his front seat passenger. The judge had found the respndent not to be at fault, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242137