Explain the legal word Res ipsa loquitur

Question: Explain the legal word Res ipsa loquitur

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Explain the legal word Res ipsa loquitur.]

Answer

Res Ipsa Loquitur means “things speak for themselves”. It seems to be a clear and straightforward maxim to grasp and apply prima facie. Res ipsa loquitur is a principle that shifts the burden of proof on the defendant by applying it.

Generally, it is the complainant who needs to offer evidence to support the guilt of the defendant in a lawsuit. There is however a shift while this principle is used. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant. On the part of the defendant, there is a presumption of guilt and it is up to him to show his non-liability and that it was not his actions that caused the injuries of the complainant.

The maxim has been described in numerous ways. “The thing speaks for itself” is simply translated. It is a “phrase often used in actions for injury by negligence where no proof of negligence is required beyond the incident itself which is such as necessarily to involve negligence.”

The phrase res ipsa loquitur was first applied to a case where usury was visible on the face of a sued instrument. In 1863, in its current use in Byrne v. Boadle, the word was first used when the complainant was wounded by a barrel that dropped from the window of the defendant. In that case, Pollock, C. B., said:

“There are many incidents from which no presumption of negligence can arise, but this is not true in every case. It is the duty of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to take care that they do not roll out and I think that such a case will, beyond all doubt, afford prima facie proof of negligence.”

Thus, the mode of inferential logic of Res Ipsa Loquitur falls into play where an event of unexplained cause is one that does not usually occur without the defendant’s negligence in controlling the item or action that harmed the claimant or destroyed his goods. It is primarily applicable in all prima facie cases, where the fault on the part of the complainant is apparent at first instance and without which the damage would not have happened. It is assumed that the defendant is negligent in such a situation and it is up to him to explain why he is not negligent.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
• CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X