Did you know: A court may find a defendant negligent even in the absence of direct evidence that the defendant’s actions contributed to the plaintiff’s loss? This legal maxim is known as res ipsa loquitur.
What does res ipsa loquitur mean?
Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin phrase translating to “the thing speaks for itself”. In Australia, it is often referred to as “the rule of common sense”. This reflects the nature of this legal maxim which allows the court to infer negligence from the nature of an incident, even when direct evidence of the defendant’s negligence is scarce.
When would res ipsa loquitur apply?
It is often pleaded in medical malpractice matters of surgical equipment remaining in a patient’s body, as well as in motor vehicle rear-end collisions. In such cases, the occurrence of the event itself may point to negligence on the part of the surgeon or driver, on the basis that such events ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence.
Australian courts do not treat res ipsa loquitur as a substantive legal principle. Instead, it is used as an evidentiary aid that allows negligence to be inferred from the surrounding facts, provided certain conditions are met. When those conditions are satisfied, the evidential burden may shift to the defendant.
The High Court has repeatedly emphasised that res ipsa loquitur is a “general method” of reasoning by which the decision-maker can infer “one or more facts in issue from circumstances proved in evidence”. The basic elements of the maxim are as follows:
- Firstly, the incident in question must be one which does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
- Secondly, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the thing (res) which is said to have indicated negligence, was under the exclusive management and control of the defendant or someone for whom the defendant is responsible (such as an employee).
- Lastly, the injury must not have been due to any action or contributory action by the Plaintiff.
It is important to note that res ipsa loquitur does not simply allow a plaintiff to shift the evidentiary burden onto the defendant due to “statistical” evidence. For example, it would not be sufficient, under the principle, for the victim of a late night traffic accident on a Friday night to imply that the defendant was intoxicated, simply because the majority of late night traffic accidents on a weekend involve alcohol. The plaintiff would still need to show the Court how the defendant was negligent.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
