The plaintiff engaged the defendants to re-wire her house. She was away, and the defendants in sole charge of the house when it suffered a major fire originating in a room used by the defendants. The defendants appealed a finding of liability saying that, there having been a dispute as to the facts, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be used to place a burden of proof on them.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘In the absence of any positive evidence of breach of duty, merely to show that a claimant’s loss was consistent with breach of duty by the defendant would not prove breach of duty if it would also be consistent with a credible non-negligent explanation. But where a claimant proves both that a defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, this will ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the claimant is unable to prove positively the precise mechanism. That is not a principle of law nor does it involve an alteration in the burden of proof; rather, it is a matter of applying common sense. The court must consider any alternative theories of causation advanced by the defendant before reaching its conclusion about where the probability lies. If it concludes that the only alternative suggestions put forward by the defendant are on balance improbable, that is likely to fortify the court’s conclusion that it is legitimate to infer that the loss was caused by the proven negligence. ‘
Judges:
Toulson LJ VP, Waller, Longmore LJJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 25, [2008] NPC 11, 121 Con LR 18
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board CA 1971
The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the burden of proof in establishing negligence: ‘I doubt whether it is right to describe res ipsa loquitur as a ‘doctrine’. I think that it is no more than an exotic, although convenient, . .
Cited – Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean and Another CA 21-Nov-2003
Where an application is made under the 1996 Act, as to the issue of causation of damage, a court can properly take a reasonably robust approach where the damage to the adjoining owner’s property is of the sort one would expect to result from the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Vaile v London Borough of Havering CA 11-Mar-2011
The claimant teacher sought damages after being assaulted at school by a child with special needs. The pupil had been identified as having an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) but the claimant was not aware of that and had not been advised as to the . .
Cited – Wilson v Haden (T/A Clyne Farm Centre) QBD 15-Feb-2013
The claimant sought damages after being injured on an adventure sports weekend hosted by the defendant.
Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own safety procedures associated with this particular feature. The landing area cushioning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Construction
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264036