Negligence - Res ipsa loquitur

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur within Negligence law. It explains the circumstances under which negligence may be inferred from the mere occurrence of an event, the necessary elements a plaintiff must establish, and the procedural effect of successfully invoking the doctrine. After reading this article, you will be able to identify fact patterns where res ipsa loquitur applies, analyze the requirements for its application, and understand its impact on the burden of proof and the potential outcomes in MBE-style negligence questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand how breach of duty can be established, including through circumstantial evidence. Res ipsa loquitur is a key doctrine in this area. You should be prepared to:

• Define res ipsa loquitur and its purpose.
• Identify the elements required to invoke the doctrine:
  • The accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence.
  • The instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's exclusive control.
  • The plaintiff did not contribute to the injury.
• Analyze the procedural effect of applying res ipsa loquitur (e.g., inference of negligence, avoiding directed verdict).
• Distinguish res ipsa loquitur from strict liability and negligence per se.
• Apply the doctrine in specific fact patterns, recognizing limitations like shared control.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish an inference of negligence based on:
   1. Direct evidence of the defendant's specific act.
   2. The defendant's violation of a statute.
   3. The nature of the accident itself.
   4. The existence of an abnormally dangerous activity.
2. Which element is traditionally required for res ipsa loquitur?
   1. The plaintiff must prove the defendant's specific negligent act.
   2. The instrumentality causing the injury must have been under the defendant's exclusive control.
   3. The plaintiff must show the defendant had a specific intent to cause harm.
   4. The defendant must be engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
3. Successfully invoking res ipsa loquitur typically means:
   1. The plaintiff automatically wins the case.
   2. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to disprove negligence.
   3. The plaintiff can avoid a directed verdict for the defendant and the case can go to the jury.
   4. The defendant is held strictly liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

Introduction

In most negligence actions, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the defendant's specific negligent act that breached a duty of care. However, in some situations, direct evidence of the defendant's negligent conduct is unavailable, yet the circumstances surrounding the accident strongly suggest that negligence must have occurred. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") addresses this scenario. It allows negligence to be inferred simply from the fact that an accident happened, provided certain conditions are met. This doctrine essentially acts as a form of circumstantial evidence, permitting the plaintiff's case to proceed to the jury even without proof of the specific act that constituted the breach.

Key Term: Res Ipsa Loquitur Latin for "the thing speaks for itself"; a doctrine allowing negligence to be inferred from the nature of an accident, even without direct evidence of the defendant's specific negligent act.

Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur

For the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff traditionally must demonstrate three elements:

1. Inference of Negligence: The accident must be of a type that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. Common experience suggests that the injury would not have happened if proper care had been exercised. Examples include falling elevators, debris falling from buildings, or surgical instruments left inside a patient.
2. Defendant's Exclusive Control: The instrumentality or agent causing the injury must have been under the defendant's exclusive control at the time the negligence likely occurred. This element connects the likely negligence to the specific defendant. If control was shared or if the instrumentality left the defendant's control before the likely negligent act, this element may not be met.
3. Plaintiff's Lack of Contribution: The injury must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's conduct must not have significantly contributed to the event causing the injury.

Key Term: Exclusive Control A requirement for Res Ipsa Loquitur, meaning the instrumentality causing the injury must have been under the defendant's sole management and control at the time the negligence likely occurred.

Worked Example 1.1

Patient undergoes abdominal surgery performed by Surgeon at Hospital. Weeks later, Patient experiences severe pain. An X-ray reveals a surgical sponge left inside Patient's abdomen. Patient sues Surgeon and Hospital. Direct evidence of who left the sponge is unavailable as several staff members were present. Can Patient likely invoke res ipsa loquitur?

Answer: Yes, likely. (1) Surgical sponges are not ordinarily left inside patients without negligence. (2) The instrumentalities (sponges, surgical site) were under the exclusive control of Surgeon and Hospital staff during the operation. Modern courts often relax the "exclusive" control element in medical settings with multiple defendants when the patient is unconscious. (3) Patient, being unconscious, did not contribute to the injury. The doctrine allows an inference of negligence against Surgeon and potentially Hospital staff.

Procedural Effect of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Successfully invoking res ipsa loquitur does not automatically mean the plaintiff wins or that the defendant is presumed negligent. Its primary effect is evidentiary:

1. Inference of Negligence: It permits, but does not compel, the jury to draw an inference that the defendant was negligent.
2. Avoiding Directed Verdict: It allows the plaintiff's case to go to the jury even without direct evidence of the defendant's breach. The judge cannot grant a directed verdict (judgment as a matter of law) for the defendant based solely on the plaintiff's lack of direct evidence of negligence.
3. Burden of Proof: In most jurisdictions, the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff. However, the defendant now faces the practical need to produce evidence explaining the event or showing due care to rebut the inference of negligence. A minority of courts might shift the burden of production to the defendant.

Exam Warning

Do not confuse res ipsa loquitur with strict liability. Res ipsa allows an inference of negligence. It does not establish automatic liability like strict liability, nor does it eliminate the need for the plaintiff to ultimately prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. Also, distinguish it from negligence per se, which involves violation of a statute establishing the standard of care.

Modern Trends and Variations

• Exclusive Control: Some courts relax the "exclusive control" requirement, especially in cases like medical malpractice involving multiple defendants or in products liability where the product passed through several hands. The focus shifts to whether the defendant was likely the responsible party for the negligence suggested by the event.
• Comparative Negligence: In comparative negligence jurisdictions, the plaintiff's minor contribution to the event might not completely bar the application of res ipsa loquitur, but it could reduce the plaintiff's recovery. The focus remains on whether the event primarily speaks of the defendant's negligence.

Worked Example 1.2

A customer is injured when a bottle of soda explodes as she removes it from a supermarket shelf. The supermarket received the bottles directly from the bottler one day prior. The customer sues both the supermarket and the bottler, invoking res ipsa loquitur. The supermarket argues it lacked exclusive control because the bottler manufactured and sealed the bottle. The bottler argues it lacked exclusive control because the bottle was handled by the supermarket. Can res ipsa loquitur apply?

Answer: Possibly against both, depending on the jurisdiction's approach. (1) Exploding bottles usually indicate negligence. (3) The customer likely did not contribute. (2) The exclusive control element is problematic. Traditionally, neither defendant had exclusive control at the time of injury. However, modern courts might relax this, allowing the inference against the bottler (if the defect likely occurred during bottling) and potentially against the supermarket (if mishandling after receipt could have caused the explosion), shifting the burden to them to show they were not negligent.

Revision Tip

Focus on identifying the three core elements in fact patterns. Pay close attention to the "exclusive control" element, as this is often the most contested and frequently tested aspect, especially in scenarios involving multiple potential defendants or products that have left the manufacturer's hands. Understand that res ipsa helps the plaintiff get to the jury, but doesn't guarantee a win.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") allows negligence to be inferred from the accident itself.
• It applies when direct evidence of breach is lacking.
• Three traditional elements: (1) accident type implies negligence, (2) defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality, (3) plaintiff did not contribute.
• Modern courts may relax the "exclusive control" requirement in certain situations (e.g., multiple medical defendants).
• Procedural effect: Creates an inference of negligence, helps plaintiff avoid a directed verdict for defendant.
• Does not shift the ultimate burden of proof in most jurisdictions.
• Must be distinguished from strict liability and negligence per se.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Exclusive Control