Res ipsa loquitur

Last updated

Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

Contents

History

The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself". [1] The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defense speech Pro Milone . [2] [3] The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent to 52 BC, some 1915 years before the English case Byrne v Boadle and the question whether Charles Edward Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case. [4]

Elements

  1. The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence or is uncommon in the course and nature of said act.
  2. The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
  3. The injury-causing accident is not by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
  4. The defendant's non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff's injury.

The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways:

  1. The injury itself is sufficient to prove blatant or palpable negligence as a matter of law, such as amputation of the wrong limb or leaving instruments inside the body after surgery.
  2. The general experience and observation of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury would not have resulted without negligence, such as a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) performed when the patient consented only to a tubal ligation (clipping of the fallopian tubes for purposes of sterilization).
  3. Expert testimony creates an inference that negligence caused the injury, such as an expert general surgeon testifying that he has performed over 1000 appendectomies (removal of the appendix) and has never caused injury to a patient's liver. He also does not know of any of his surgeon colleagues having inflicted injury to a patient's liver during an appendectomy. The testimony would create an inference that injuring the liver in the course of an appendectomy is negligence.

The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.

Exclusive control requirement

The common law traditionally required "the instrumentality or agent which caused the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendant". See e.g., Eaton v. Eaton, 575 A2d 858 (NJ 1990). However, in the United States the second and the third versions of the Restatement of Torts eliminated the strict requirement because it can be difficult to prove "exclusive control". Accordingly, the element has largely given way in modern American cases to a less rigid formulation: the evidence must eliminate, to a sufficient degree, other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of control must be such that the likelihood of injury was more likely than not, the result of the defendant's negligence. The likelihood of other possibilities does not need to be eliminated altogether but must be so reduced that the greater probability lies with the defendant.

Here is a fictitious example:

In some cases, a closed group of people may be held in breach of a duty of care under the rule of res ipsa loquitur. In Ybarra v. Spangard , [5] a patient undergoing surgery experienced back complications as a result of the surgery, but it could not be determined the specific member of the surgical team who had breached the duty so it was held that they had all breached, as it was certain that at least one of them was the only person who was in exclusive control of the instrumentality of harm.

In jurisdictions that employ this less rigid formulation of exclusive control, the element subsumes the element that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury. In modern case law, contributory negligence is compared to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% of the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, the plaintiff's slight fault cannot negate the negligence of the other. The new type of split liability is commonly called comparative negligence .

Typical in medical malpractice

Res ipsa loquitur often arises in the "scalpel left behind" variety of case. For example, a person goes to a doctor with abdominal pains after having his appendix removed. X-rays show the patient has a metal object the size and shape of a scalpel in his abdomen. It requires no further explanation to show the surgeon who removed the appendix was negligent, as there is no legitimate reason for a doctor to leave a scalpel in a body at the end of an appendectomy. [6]

Examples by jurisdictions

Canada

In Canada the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been largely overturned by the Supreme Court. In case of Fontaine v. British Columbia (Official Administrator) [7] the Court rejected the use of res ipsa loquitur and instead proposed the rule that once the plaintiff has proven that the harm was under exclusive control of the defendant and that they were not contributorily negligent a tactical burden is placed on the defendant in which the judge has the discretion to infer negligence unless the defendant can produce evidence to the contrary.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is one of the common law jurisdictions that use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Some lawyers prefer to avoid the expression res ipsa loquitur (for example, Hobhouse LJ in Radcliff v. Plymouth). [8] But other lawyers (and judges too) still find the expression a convenient one (for example, see the judgement of Mr Justice Bokhary, a Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, in Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong). [9]

The expression res ipsa loquitur is not a doctrine but a "mode of inferential reasoning" and applies only to accidents of unknown cause. [9] [10] Res ipsa loquitur comes into play where an accident of unknown cause is one that would not normally happen without negligence on the part of the defendant in control of the object or activity which injured the plaintiff or damaged his property. In such a situation the court is able to infer negligence on the defendant's part unless he offers an acceptable explanation consistent with his having taken reasonable care. [9]

Ireland

The Irish courts have applied the doctrine. In Hanrahan v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme (Ireland) Ltd. [1988] ILRM 629 the supreme court held that in cases of nuisance the burden of proof could be shifted to the defendant where it would be palpably unfair for the plaintiff to have to prove something beyond their reach. The facts concerned poisoning of farm animals downwind of a chemical plant. [11]

In Rothwell v. The Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland [2003] 1 IR 268 the supreme court held the burden of proof would shift when the knowledge is exclusive to the defendant, but also where it is "especially within the range" of the defendant's capacity to probe the facts.

South Africa

In South African law (which is modelled on Roman Dutch law), there is no doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, although the phrase is used regularly to mean the "facts speak for themselves". Res ipsa loquitur does not shift any burden of proof or onus from one party to the other. The phrase is merely a handy phrase used by lawyers.

United Kingdom

The doctrine exists in both English law and Scots law.

England and Wales

In English tort law, the effect of res ipsa loquitur is a strong inference in favour of the claimant that negligence has taken place. It does not however fully reverse the burden of proof (Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, 1988). [12]

The requirement of control is important in English law. This requirement was not satisfied in Easson v. LNE Ry [1944] 2 KB 421, where a small child fell off a train several miles after it had left the station. It was considered that the door of the train was not sufficiently under control of the railway company after the train started moving and could have been opened by somebody for whom the company was not responsible. This case was distinguished from the earlier Gee v. Metropolitan Ry [13] where the plaintiff fell from the train immediately after it left the station, when the door through which he fell could still be considered to be fully controlled by the railway company.

The requirement that the exact cause of the accident must be unknown is illustrated by the case of Barkway v. South Wales Transport. [14] In this case a bus veered across the road and it was known that the accident was caused by a flat tyre. In this case, the plaintiff could not be assisted by res ipsa loquitur and had to go on to prove that the flat tyre was caused by the transport company's negligence.

Scotland

The doctrine exists in the Scots law of delict . The leading case is that of Scott v London & Catherine Dock Co. [15] This case laid down 3 requirements for the doctrine to apply:

  1. There must be reasonable evidence of negligence
  2. The circumstances must be under the direct control of the defender or his servants
  3. The accident must be of such a type that would not occur without negligence.

In Scott, the court held that sacks of sugar do not fall out of warehouses and crush passers-by without somebody having been negligent along the way, so the plaintiff did need not to show how it happened.

Recent examples in Scotland are McDyer v Celtic Football Club [16] and McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd. [17]

United States

Under United States common law, res ipsa loquitur has the following requirements:

  1. The event does not normally occur unless someone has acted negligently;
  2. The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party caused the injury; and
  3. The type of negligence in question falls within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. [18]

Most American courts recognize res ipsa loquitur. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328D describes a two-step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur. The first step is whether the accident is the kind usually caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident. If found, res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence, although in most cases it does not necessarily result in a directed verdict. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17, adopts a similar test, although it eschews the exclusive control element.

The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v. Wright, [19] a seven-inch hemostat was left in Mrs. Gray during gallbladder surgery in June 1947, and despite her chronic complaints about stomach pain over the years, the device was not found until an X-ray in March 1953, when it was removed. Her $12,000 award was reversed by the Supreme Court of West Virginia because she was outside the statute of limitations when she filed and could not prove that the doctor concealed knowledge of his error. This "guilty knowledge" requirement disappeared over the years, and the "discovery rule" by which statutes of limitation run from the date of discovery of the wrongdoing rather than the date of the occurrence has become the rule in most states.

Forty years later, leaving a medical device in a patient was medical malpractice, provable without expert testimony, in almost every jurisdiction. [20] Virginia has limited the rule. The Virginia Supreme Court stated in 1996: "Almost 60 years ago, this Court, discussing res ipsa loquitur, said: 'In Virginia the doctrine, if not entirely abolished, has been limited and restricted to a very material extent.' City of Richmond v. Hood Rubber Products Co., 168 Va. 11, 17, 190 S.E. 95, 98 (1937). ... It may be utilized only when the circumstances of the incident, without further proof, are such that, in the ordinary course of events, the incident could not have happened except on the theory of negligence." [21]

A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, somebody's made a terrible mistake." [22]

In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's criminal purpose", [23] for example:

Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or which serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances

— Model Penal Code [23]

Criticism

Some US tort scholars have criticized the doctrine as an unnecessarily cumbersome way to state the simple proposition that negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence. [24] In their view, the doctrine does not promote clarity in courts' reasoning. [25]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning at first sight or based on first impression. The literal translation would be 'at first face' or 'at first appearance', from the feminine forms of primus ('first') and facies ('face'), both in the ablative case. In modern, colloquial and conversational English, a common translation would be "on the face of it".

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Byrne v Boadle is an English tort law case that first applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

The last clear chance doctrine of tort law is applicable to negligence cases in jurisdictions that apply rules of contributory negligence in lieu of comparative negligence. Under this doctrine, a negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Though the stated rationale has differed depending on the jurisdiction adopting the doctrine, the underlying idea is to mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence rule. Conversely, a defendant can also use this doctrine as a defense. If the plaintiff has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, the defendant will not be liable.

In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances.

Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.

<i>Martin v. Herzog</i>

Martin v. Herzog, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920), was a New York Court of Appeals case.

Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in United States tort law which arises where one party is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States, not so much for the actual majority opinion, but for the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor.

Ybarra v. Spangard was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur. "Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct."

Alternative liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to shift the burden of proving causation of her injury to multiple defendants, even though only one of them could have been responsible. The typical case showing the principle of alternative liability in action is Summers v. Tice, where the two defendants negligently shot in the direction of the plaintiff and two pellets caused the plaintiff's injury, one in the right eye and one in the upper lip. In the interest of justice, the innocent plaintiff's case is not defeated because he cannot prove which party was the actual cause of his injury.

<i>Venning v Chin</i> Australian court case

Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 is a Supreme Court of South Australia full court judgment, by which it was decided that in trespass cases, the onus lies on the defendant to disprove fault. However, for injuries caused in highway accidents, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

<i>Doherty v Reynolds and St. Jamess Hospital Board</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Doherty v Reynolds and St. James's Hospital Board [2004] IESC 42 was a case of medical negligence in which the Supreme Court of Ireland confirmed that, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where an injury would not be expected to occur without negligence in the management of something, negligence on the part of those charged with the thing's management may be presumed from the mere fact of injury.

References

  1. ↑ "The Northwestern Reporter". West Publishing Company. 30 September 2017. Retrieved 30 September 2017– via Google Books.
  2. ↑ "M. Tullius Cicero, For Milo, section 53". Perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
  3. ↑ Jon R. Waltz; Fred Edward Inbau (1971). Medical jurisprudence. Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN   0-02-424430-9.
  4. ↑ "The thing speaks for itself usually, but it didn't show up, so we brought you this instead". officialinformationact.blogspot.co.nz. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
  5. ↑ 93 Cal.App2d 43 (1949)
  6. ↑ "Medical Malpractice Guide". Tuesday, 31 December 2019
  7. ↑ [1998] 1 S.C.R. 424
  8. ↑ "PIQRP170", Ratcliffe v. Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority, 1998
  9. 1 2 3 "6 HKCFAR 207", Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong, 2003
  10. ↑ "200 CLR 121", Schellenberg v. Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd, 2000
  11. ↑ McGrath, Andrew. "The Hanrahan Judgement: State, Big Pharma and the Future of Incineration". The Tara Foundation. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  12. ↑ "298", Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, RTR, 1988{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  13. ↑ "161", Gee v. Metropolitan Ry, LR QB, 1873{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. ↑ "392", Barkway v. South Wales Transport , 1 All ER, 1950{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  15. ↑ Scott v. London & Catherine Dock Co 3 H&C 596, 1865
  16. ↑ "379", McDyer v. Celtic Football Club, SC, 2000{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  17. ↑ "211", McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd, SLT, 1995{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  18. ↑ "Res Ipsa Loquitur". Injury.findlaw.com. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
  19. ↑ Gray v. Wright 142 W. Va. 490, 96 S.E. 2d 671, 1957
  20. ↑ See Fieux v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Clinic, P.C., 159 Or. App. 637, 641, 978 P.2d 429, 433 (1999); Steinkamp v. Caremark, 3 S.W.3d 191, 198-99 (Tex. Civ. App. 1999); Baumgardner v. Yusuf, 144 Cal. App. 4th 1381, 1392, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1381, 1392 (2006); Fox v. Green, 161 N.C. App. 460, 465, 588 S.E. 2d 899, 904 (2003).
  21. ↑ Lewis v. Carpenter Co. , 252 Va. 296, 477 S.E.2d 492 (1996).
  22. ↑ Bernard, Kirk (15 September 2008). "California Metrolink Train Accident Caused By Engineer's Error". Seattle Injury Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2015.
  23. 1 2 Frank Schmalleger, Criminal Law Today: An Introduction with Capstone Cases", p. 115, N. 29, citing Model Penal Code, § 5.01 (2).
  24. ↑ Sugarman, Stephen D. (2022). "Rethinking Tort Doctrine: Visions of a Restatement (Fourth) of Torts". UCLA Law Review. 50: 601–602.
  25. ↑ Bayern, Shawn (2023). Principles and Possibilities in Common Law: Torts, Contracts, and Property. Eagen, MN: West Academic Publishing. pp. 45–49.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.