This lesson introduces res ipsa loquitur, a common-law doctrine that allows negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of an accident when direct evidence about what the defendant did is unavailable.
Res ipsa loquitur is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” In negligence litigation, it describes a form of circumstantial reasoning: the nature of an injury or accident may support an inference that someone was negligent, even though the claimant cannot identify the precise careless act.
All flashcards
What does res ipsa loquitur mean?
It means “the thing speaks for itself.” In negligence cases, it describes an inference of negligence drawn from the nature and circumstances of an accident.
What is circumstantial inference?
It is reasoning from surrounding facts to a conclusion. Under res ipsa loquitur, the unusual nature of an accident may support an inference that negligence occurred.
What are the four usual elements of negligence?
Duty of care, breach of the appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury.
What did traditional res ipsa loquitur analysis require about control?
It generally required the instrumentality or agent causing the accident to be under the defendant’s exclusive control.
Does res ipsa loquitur automatically establish liability?
No. Its effect differs by jurisdiction, and a defendant may rebut the inference with a complete non-negligent explanation.
Quiz questions
Under traditional res ipsa loquitur analysis, what was generally required regarding the instrumentality that caused the accident?Answer: It was under the defendant’s exclusive control.
In a jurisdiction applying comparative negligence, what may happen if the claimant contributed partly to an injury?Answer: The claimant’s recovery may be reduced according to the claimant’s share of fault.
A vehicle’s tyre is known to have been flat before a crash. Why does that fact alone not establish negligent maintenance under res ipsa loquitur?Answer: The claimant must still connect the known cause to the defendant’s negligence.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in Fontaine v. British Columbia (Official Administrator) about res ipsa loquitur?Answer: It rejected the doctrine as a separate rule, while allowing judges to infer negligence from relevant facts.
In many United States jurisdictions, what may a retained surgical instrument help a claimant prove?Answer: Medical malpractice, sometimes without expert testimony.
Based on the Wikipedia article Res ipsa loquitur, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Adapted into a summary, flashcards and quizzes.