The principles relating to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in general, are well settled and applied consistently.
The maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor, allows the claimant to succeed in action for negligence even when there is no evidence as to what caused the accident and whether it was attributable to negligence on the part of the defendant. It shifts the onus of burden to the defendant.
In its shift from the general maxim of - ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on the person who affirms, not the one who denies), it furthers the principle of equity, which is a widely acknowledged aspect of the common law system. This maxim make a departure from the general rule, and shifts the burden of proof …show more content…
It is certainly true that the doctrine creates a strong incentive for the defendant to produce evidence within its control, at least if it is exculpatory.
However, most courts do not restrict the doctrine to cases in which the defendant has better access to proof. Often the defendant has no better chance of explaining the accident than the plaintiff does. In the disappearing plane case, for example, the airline or the canner may have no idea what caused the accident, or any way of finding out. Yet the likely explanation of the accident may still be negligence. In such cases, the defendant should not be able to avoid res ipsa loquitur simply by showing that it knows no more about the accident than the plaintiff …show more content…
The facts presented to the court must meet the three basic requirements. Once the court decides that the facts of a particular case, warrants the application of res ipsa loquitur, it proceeds by deciding the credibility and weight of the inference to be drawn from the known facts. Everything depends upon the particular facts of each case. An inference of negligence might be so clear that no reasonable person could fail to accept it. If the defendant offers no explanation, the court can direct a verdict for the plaintiff if the inference is so strong that reasonable jurors could not reach any other conclusion. Where the jury considers the question of negligence, it can decide that the facts do not logically lead to an inference of the defendant's negligence, even if the defendant did not offer any evidence in her defense. If the defendant presents evidence that makes it unlikely that she has acted negligently, the plaintiff will lose his case unless he can rebut the evidence, since such evidence destroys the inference of negligence created by res ipsa.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will remain an important weapon in the evidentiary armament of a plaintiff in personal injury
The maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor, allows the claimant to succeed in action for negligence even when there is no evidence as to what caused the accident and whether it was attributable to negligence on the part of the defendant. It shifts the onus of burden to the defendant.
In its shift from the general maxim of - ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on the person who affirms, not the one who denies), it furthers the principle of equity, which is a widely acknowledged aspect of the common law system. This maxim make a departure from the general rule, and shifts the burden of proof …show more content…
It is certainly true that the doctrine creates a strong incentive for the defendant to produce evidence within its control, at least if it is exculpatory.
However, most courts do not restrict the doctrine to cases in which the defendant has better access to proof. Often the defendant has no better chance of explaining the accident than the plaintiff does. In the disappearing plane case, for example, the airline or the canner may have no idea what caused the accident, or any way of finding out. Yet the likely explanation of the accident may still be negligence. In such cases, the defendant should not be able to avoid res ipsa loquitur simply by showing that it knows no more about the accident than the plaintiff …show more content…
The facts presented to the court must meet the three basic requirements. Once the court decides that the facts of a particular case, warrants the application of res ipsa loquitur, it proceeds by deciding the credibility and weight of the inference to be drawn from the known facts. Everything depends upon the particular facts of each case. An inference of negligence might be so clear that no reasonable person could fail to accept it. If the defendant offers no explanation, the court can direct a verdict for the plaintiff if the inference is so strong that reasonable jurors could not reach any other conclusion. Where the jury considers the question of negligence, it can decide that the facts do not logically lead to an inference of the defendant's negligence, even if the defendant did not offer any evidence in her defense. If the defendant presents evidence that makes it unlikely that she has acted negligently, the plaintiff will lose his case unless he can rebut the evidence, since such evidence destroys the inference of negligence created by res ipsa.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will remain an important weapon in the evidentiary armament of a plaintiff in personal injury