There had been a crossover collision on a dual carriageway.
Held: The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Held: Where a defendant adduces evidence, that evidence must be evaluated to see if it is still reasonable to draw the inference of negligence from the mere fact of the accident.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘The judge however was of the view that, despite those findings of fact, because the plaintiffs had originally relied upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of disproving negligence remained upon the defendants and they had failed to discharge it. In their Lordships’ opinion this shows a misunderstanding of the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which is no more than the use of a latin maxim to describe a state of the evidence from which it is proper to draw an inference of negligence. Although it has been said in a number of cases, it is misleading to talk of the burden of proof shifting to the defendant in a res ipsa loquitur situation. The burden of proving negligence rests throughout the case on the plaintiff’ and
‘So in an appropriate case the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by relying upon the fact of the accident. If the defendant adduces no evidence there is nothing to rebut the inference of negligence and the plaintiff will have proved his case. But if the defendant does adduce evidence that evidence must be evaluated to see if it is still reasonable to draw the inference of negligence from the mere fact of the accident. Loosely speaking this may be referred to as a burden on the defendant to show he was not negligent, but that only means that faced with a prima facie case of negligence the defendant will be found negligent unless he produces evidence that is capable of rebutting the prima facie case.’ and ‘Resort to the burden of proof is a poor way to decide a case; it is the duty of the judge to examine all the evidence at the end of the case and decide whether on the facts he finds to have been proved and on the inferences he is prepared to draw he is satisfied that negligence has been established. In so far as resort is had to the burden of proof the burden remains at the end of the case as it was at the beginning upon the plaintiff to prove that his injury was caused by the negligence of the defendants. Their Lordships adopt the following two passages from the decided cases as most clearly expressing the true meaning and effect of the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.’
Judges:
Lord Griffiths
Citations:
[1988] SJ 1244, [1988] RTR 298, [1988] UKPC 7
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Co CEC 1865
Requirements to set up Res Ipsa Loquitur
The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies only where circumstances are established which afford reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defenders, that the accident arose from their negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Another v Harris PC 30-Oct-2006
(Cayman Islands) The respondent appealed a finding of negligence. She drove a car along a road colliding with three pedestrians, the claimants. The pedestrians said they had been walking in single file in a lay-by off the main carriageway. The . .
Cited – Bingham, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Evidence, Commonwealth
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190044
