Did you know: Latin phrases and terms are still widely used in Australian law due to the historical influence of Roman law on the development of legal systems.
Here are a few often used Latin phrases or maxims that you will no doubt see come across your desk at some point, and an example of how they apply in our legal system:
- Res ipsa loquitur translates to “the thing speaks for itself”. It is a legal principle used to infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury, in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. The principle allows the presumption that a defendant’s negligence was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
Imagine a surgical procedure where a patient is left with a surgical instrument inside their body. The patient suffers complications and sues the surgeon and the hospital for negligence. In this case, “res ipsa loquitur” could be invoked because such an incident (leaving an instrument inside a patient) typically does not happen without negligence. The presence of the instrument itself is sufficient evidence to suggest negligence, even if there is no direct evidence of the surgeon’s specific actions during the surgery.
- Novus actus interveniens (also known as a “new intervening act”) is a legal doctrine that refers to an event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s initial act and the ultimate harm suffered by the plaintiff. This intervening act can relieve the original defendant of liability if it is determined to be a sufficient cause of the injury, independent of the defendant’s actions.
Suppose the plaintiff’s motor vehicle is damaged in an accident caused by defendant’s negligence. While being towed from the accident scene, the tow truck is involved in a second accident due to the recklessness of the tow truck driver, resulting in further damage being caused to the plaintiff’s vehicle. If the damage caused to the plaintiff’s vehicle in the second accident is significantly worse than those from the initial car accident, the tow truck driver’s actions might be considered a “novus actus interveniens”. In this case, the defendant may not be held liable for the additional damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the tow truck accident, as the second accident is a new and independent cause of that damage.
- Volenti non fit injuria means “to a willing person, no injury is done”. It refers to the principle that a person cannot claim compensation for harm or injury to which they have willingly and knowingly consented. In other words, if someone voluntarily puts themselves in a position where harm might occur, they cannot later sue for any resulting damages.
Imagine a person who attends a boxing match as a participant. They are aware of the risks involved in boxing, including the possibility of getting injured. During the match, they get hit and suffer a broken nose. In this case, the principle of “volenti non fit injuria” would apply because the participant willingly consented to the risks associated with boxing. Therefore, they would not be able to claim compensation from their opponent or the organisers of the match for the injury sustained during the bout.
- Prima facie means “at first sight” or “on its face”. In the legal context, it refers to a case or evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption of fact unless disproved or rebutted. In other words, prima facie evidence is enough to support a claim or assertion initially, and it requires further examination or evidence to confirm or refute it.
Suppose a person is charged with theft. The prosecution presents security footage showing the defendant taking items from a store without paying. This footage constitutes prima facie evidence of theft because, at first sight, it appears to show the defendant committing the crime. The burden then shifts to the defendant to provide an explanation or evidence that might rebut this presumption, such as showing that they had permission to take the items or that the footage is misleading or incomplete.
- Res judicata means “a matter judged”. In the legal context, it refers to the principle that a final judgment by a competent court on a matter is conclusive and prevents the same parties from litigating the same issue again. This principle is meant to bring finality to legal disputes and ensure that the same case is not tried multiple times.
Imagine a scenario where Person A sues Person B for breach of contract, claiming that Person B did not fulfill their obligations under the contract. The court hears the case and issues a final judgment in favour of Person B, ruling that there was no breach of contract. If Person A later tries to sue Person B again for the same breach of contract on the same facts, the court would apply the doctrine of res judicata to dismiss the case, as the matter has already been adjudicated and cannot be reopened.
About me (Fred van Reede) – I’m responsible for the William Roberts team that does all Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia matters. My favourite Latin phrase is “veni, vidi, vici” spoken by Julius Ceaser. It means “I came, I saw, I conquered”.
