Res Ipsa Loquitor is a legal maxim which means ‘the thing speaks for itself.’[1] It is a very popular doctrine in circumstantial or indirect evidence which infers negligence from the accident that has taken place and there is the absence of direct evidence against the opposite party.
Res ipsa loquitur is an incredible legitimate teaching. This legitimate proverb makes it hard for that individual who needs to escape from the obligation. Which means, of Res ipsa loquitur is ‘the thing justifies itself with real evidence’. Sometimes, more especially on account of a mishap, the episodes themselves talk about the confirmation of carelessness.
The overall guideline is that the offended party should demonstrate the carelessness. At times, the offended party can demonstrate the mishaps; however, it is hard to demonstrate how it occurred. This difficulty on the offended party is tried not to by applying this proverb of res ipsa loquitur. It implies that once this proverb is applied, it is for the respondent to demonstrate that the occurrence didn’t happen because of his carelessness. Notwithstanding, the respondent can escape from the obligation by negating carelessness on his part.
It is to be noted that this maxim is not a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence. It is a rule which gives benefit to the plaintiff by not requiring him to prove negligence.
The elements of res ipsa loquitur are:
- There must be reasonable evidence of negligence.
- The circumstances must be under the direct control of the defender or his servants.
- The accident must be of such a type that would not occur without negligence.
If a plaintiff establishes the elements of res ipsa loquitur, the court will apply the doctrine. Then the burden is placed on the defendant to provide an explanation of the accident which caused the harm. In such a case, if the defendant fails to give proper explanation, it will be presumed that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant.
Some Important Indian Cases:
Aagya Kaur V. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [AIR 1980 P&H 183]
A bus coming on the wrong side dashed a rickshaw. After hitting the rickshaw, it also hit an electric pole.
The court held that the above facts speak about the high speed of the bus. The inference was drawn that the driver of the bus was negligent and held liable.
The Chief Secretary, Govt Of Karnataka V. Ramesh [AIR 2005 Karnataka 39]
The petitioner was injured by a bullet while sitting in his house when a police sub-inspector opened fire from his service revolver to control a violent mob outside the petitioner’s house. The defendant gave no evidence to show that the conduct of such a sub-inspector in firing was warranted by the circumstances and diligently done.
The court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and held that the sub – inspector was liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Kaunu Rawther V. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [AIR 1975 Ker 109]
A person was standing at the back side of a bus at a bus stand. He was knocked down by the bus when it was being reversed. The maxim res ipsa loquitur was applied, and the respondents were held liable for not taking care and caution by the driver and the conductor.
Conclusion
Res ipsa loquitur states that it is reasonable that liability lies with the defendant, and no other evidence required to be furnished. But the defendant can escape from liability by disproving negligence on his part. This doctrine can be used in many ways for the benefit of people. For example, it can be used in medical malpractice also.
Reference:
[1] Available at http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1823
About the author –
This article is written by Shreyansh Sharma, 2nd Year student of LL.B at Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara
