parent nodes: Breach of Duty | burden of proof | joint liability | Negligence Torts | standard of care
res ipsa loquitur
The procedural device of res ipsa allows a plaintiff to assume a defendant's negligence when the plaintiff's injuries are of a sort that would not normally occur without negligence. Res ipsa does not automatically apply when the injury caused is rare. [Wilson v Stillwill] (NL for paralyzed arm after somewhat routine operation).
Res ipsa loquitur works well as an information-forcing rule, as the burden of proof is placed on the defendant to show his lack of negligence. Res ipsa therefore works where the defendants have better information than the plaintiff about the accident, [Ybarra v Spangard], cf. [Combustion Engineering v Hunsberger] (NL where employee hurt by tool dropped by another employee), or where the accident is likely to destroy evidence about the accident.
One corollary of res ipsa's information-forcing benefits is that res ipsa is more likely where the danger of an accident is chronic, allowing the defendant to prepare for possible danger, [Connolly v Nicollet Hotel] (L from damage caused during raucous party at hotel), than where the danger is sudden or unexpected. [Larson v St Francis Hotel] (NL from damage from VJ Day); [Haasmann v Pacific Alaska Air]. Conversely, evidence of a defendant's prior experience may make a res ipsa case less successful. [Walston v Lambertsen] (NL where ship piloted by experience captain disappeared).
Another corollary of the information-forcing rule is that res ipsa suits can be brought against multiple defendants in order to procure information about the accident. [Ybarra v Spangard]
Where the plaintiff and defendant have equal difficulty accessing information about the accident, however, res ipsa is typically not allowed. [Judson v Giant Powder]. (explosion at dynamite factory where all witnesses killed). But see [Haasmann v Pacific Alaska Air] (NL where plane mysteriously disappears over Alaskan wilderness).
A res ipsa suit is more likely where the technology involved in an activity is more complicated or advanced, for example in airplanes; the more safety precautions involved, the higher chance that an accident was caused by compliance error. At the same time, the more safety precautions involved, the lower the magnitude of a particular accident will be.
Doctrinal Definition
In order to satisfy res ipsa,
(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence;
(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant;
(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
(Prosser Torts 295).
Cases
Cases finding res ipsa injury
[Byrne v Boadle] (P hit by falling barrel near a factory that had lifting device for barrels)
[Ybarra v Spangard] (P's back mysteriously injured while unconscious for a different type of surgery)
[Haasmann v Pacific Alaska Air] (NL where plane mysteriously disappears over Alaskan wilderness).
Cases finding no res ipsa
[alias: res ipsa]
[icon: desert]