Torts Notes - Res Ipsa Loquitur

Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) is another means of proving negligence.

The cases that reach the trial stage are likely to present substantial disputes of fact. 

Direct testimony of a witness is compelling evidence.  Circumstantial evidence allows a jury to infer that the defendant was negligent.  Res ipsa loquitur is a step further beyond the traditional use of circumstantial evidence.

Res Ipsa Loquitur bespeaks negligence without more specific showing of the chain of events.  Not a separate principle, but a specific form of circumstantial evidence.

Facts can sometimes be inferred by other facts.

There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary cause of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidecne, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

To make a res ipsa loquitur case, the defendant must make a case for the jury by showing that he was injured by an accident taht would not ordinarily happen without negligence and second, that negligence is more likely than not attributable to the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff or a third party.

The plaintiff's burden in proof of a negligence case is not to eliminate all possible alternative causes of his injury.  His burden is to show that the more probable cause was negligence. 

Evidence must point to the defendant as the negligent party.

The harm must have been under the defendant's control.

The event must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff

A judge has the power to refuse to submit a res ipsa loquitur to the jury if there is no credible evidence in support of one or more of the elements of the plaintiff's claim.

The doctrine permits the jury to infer negligence but it does not require them to.

When the accident is such that it would not ordinarily have happened unless someone was negligent, and if the thing which caused the accident is shown to have been under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time that the negligent act, if any, happened, then you are permitted to infer from the mere fact that the accident happened and the circumstances surrounding it that the defendant was negligent.

The most effective way for a defendant to defeat a res ipsa loquitur case is to prove the actual cause of the accident.  If he can attack each of the foundation facts, he can request a directed verdict from the judge.  the judge's role is not to make findings himself that the foundation facts are established, but rather to determine whether the jury reasonably could conclude that those facts are proved.

res ipsa loquitur applies to the type of injury that ordinarily would not have occurred if reasonable care had been used.

res ipsa loquitur is not used when the chain of events of the accident can be explained.