Liability in Negligence for Injury to People and Damage to Property: Negligence - Res Ipsa Loquitur Flashcards

1
Q

What does Res Ipsa Loquitur mean?

A
  • The thing speaks for itself
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Name a key case for res ipsa loquitur

A
  • Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Company (1865)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What happened in Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Company (1865)?

A
  • Claimant hit by falling sugar bags from a crane. He was the only witness
  • Judge directed the jury to find for the defendant on the grounds that there was not enough evidence
  • Claimant appealed and a new trial was ordered
  • Claim successful on appeal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does prima facie mean?

A
  • At first sight
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the effect of Res Ipsa Loquitur? What must the defendant then explain?

A
  • To create a prima facie presumption of negligence against the defendant
  • The defendant must then explain how the accident could’ve happened without negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Does Res Ipsa Loquitur change the burden of proof? Explain

A
  • No, the claimant still has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does Res Ipsa Loquitur change?

A
  • The evidential burden of proof which is NOT THE SAME as burden of proof
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

When can a claimant use Res Ipsa Loquitur? (3)

A
  • When the thing that caused the damage was under the control of the defendant
  • When the cause of the accident is unknown
  • When the accident is such that would not normally happen without negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Give a key case for the ‘under the control of the defendant’ requirement for Res Ipsa Loquitur

A
  • Easson v London and North Eastern Railway Co (1944)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happened in Easson v London and Northern Eastern Railway Co (1944)?

A
  • 4 year old fell through a door in the corridor of a moving train and was injured when he fell onto the railway track
  • HELD - CoA held that the door was not under the continuous control of the defendant and could have been opened by another passenger so Res Ipsa Loquitur could not be used
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

If the cause of the accident is unknown, why can’t Res Ipsa Loquitur be used?

A
  • Because the facts no longer ‘speak for themselves’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give a key case for the ‘cause of the accident is unknown’ requirement for Res Ipsa Loquitur

A
  • Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd (1950)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd (1950)? What was held?

A
  • Claimants husband was killed when a tyre burst on a bus he was riding, causing the bus to crash. There was evidence that the tyre had been damaged by receiving heavy blows on the outside
  • HELD - HoL said Res Ipsa Loquitur could not be used because the facts were sufficiently known
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Give a key case for the ‘accident would not normally occur without negligence’ requirement for Res Ipsa Loquitur

A
  • Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)? What was held?

A
  • Claimant entered hospital for treatment on two stiff fingers
  • Due to inadequate post-operative care he was left with four stiff fingers and a useless hand
  • Hospital did not attempt to explain how it could have happened without negligence
  • HELD - hospital negligent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Claimants in negligence proceedings may be helped by what Act? What can it do? Explain

A
  • Civil Evidence Act (1968)
  • If a person is convicted of a criminal offence against the claimant and the claimant then brings a civil action on the same facts that led to the conviction, then the criminal conviction is evidence of the defendant’s liability unless he or she can prove otherwise
17
Q

In what circumstance did the Easson case suggest that Res Ipsa Loquitur will not apply?

A
  • If there is any evidence at all that another party could have been at fault, or if there was an intervening act