Maxim- Res Ipsa Loquitur

Introduction

There are many Latin phrases into the law, the maxim res ipsa loquitur is perhaps the best

known. So, res ipsa loquitur is frequently treated as a doctrine or rule of law, it is in fact nothing

but a bundle of legal concepts, each of which may be treated separately. Its literally means

“Things speak for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur is a type of circumstantial evidence that may be used

by a plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of a person who commits a tort.

History

The history of the maxim is - it was first used in the area of tort liability in famous case of Byrne

v. Broadle. A barrel of flour had rolled from a warehouse window striking a pedestrian, and

Pollock took the .position that this was one of those factual situations in which it could be said,

“res ipsa loquitur.”

Explanation

Res ipsa is one type of circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable fact finder to determine

that the defendant’s negligence caused an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the

plaintiff. As in the, cases of res ipsa loquitur , the a claimant need not prove specific negligence,

but need only prove negligence of an unspecified nature or facts from which it may be inferred

that the defendant was negligent in some manner not further specified.

For example, a piano falling from a window and landing on an individual, a barrel falling from a

skyscraper and harming someone below, a sponge is left inside a patient following surgery or the

carcass of an animal is discovered inside a food can.

To prove res ipsa loquitor negligence, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:

 The accident must be a type that does not generally happen without negligence.

 It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant’s control.

 The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause.

Res ipsa loquitur is also sometimes applied in medical malpractice cases where something

obviously went wrong in surgery. A foreign object might have ended up in a patient. While it

may not be possible to prove precisely what happened during the surgery, possibly because the

only people conscious at the time work for the defendant hospital, events occurred that do not

ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. This is sufficient to swing the burden of proof to

the defendant hospital so that it will be held liable unless it can prove the chain of events that

demonstrates that it was not negligent.

Nikhal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I, Chandigarh, Amrik Singh aged 52 years was operated upon at

P.G.I, Chandigarh after Splenic Abscess was diagnosed. The family was informed that operation

was successful. The patient soon developed trouble and died. A scissor utilized by surgeon were

found in last remains after Amrik Singh was cremated. So, here doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

applied as “thing speak itself” that it is a negligence of surgeon. Compensation of Rs. 12,000 was

granted to complainants i.e. defendants of deceased.

Mrs Aparna Dutta v. Applo Hospital Madras, the plaintiff get herself operated upon in defendant

hospital for removal of her uterus, as a cyst was found to have developed near one of her ovaries.

The surgeon, who performed operation left abdominal pack in abdomen. As a result, the foreign

matter was subsequently removed by another surgical operation. It was held to be a case of res

ipsa loquitur. The surgeon concerned and hospital authorities were held to be liable for

negligence and were ordered to pay damages to tune of Rs. 5,20,000 to plaintiff.

Conclusion

There is no common factor appearing in all the cases and certainly nothing even approaching a

uniform boundary for the area in which the words are used. Res Ipsa Loquitur is finding

increasing applicability in the modern era. It is applied in cases of industries like the use of the

maxim in the M.C.Mehta v. Union of India popularly known as the olium gas leak case and

generally all cases where the rights of the public is violated and they have been aggrieved and it

is not possible for them to establish negligence. So the onus of not proving negligence is shifted

to the defendants.

It is applied primarily in all prima facie cases, where at first instance the negligence on part of

the defendant is evident and without which the injury would not have occurred.

credit: Jaspreet Kaur

College- University of Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan