Presumption of Negligence: RIL

Question 1

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 1

The transaction speaks for itself.

Where the thing which caused the injury, without fault of injured person, is under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation, that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care. Burden shifts to defendant to establish that due care was observed.

Persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were the defendants and employees but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever.

Question 2

Basis of Res Ipsa

Answer 2

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY

Defendant who is in charge of the instrumentality either:

1. Knows the cause of the accident
2. Has the best opportunity of ascertaining it

And plaintiff has no knowledge and therefore is compelled to allege negligence in general terms and to rely on proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence

Chief evidence is accessible to defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.

BRIDGE. Plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter which the plaintiff complains.

Question 3

Elements of Res Ipsa

Answer 3

1. Accident was of a nature which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to the voluntary action or contribution of the person injured
4. The injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident

Question 4

Burden of Proof when RIL applies in Med Malpractice Suits

Answer 4

General Rule: Expert testimony is relied upon to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure

EXC:
When RIL applies, expert testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. No longer domain of medical science, but may be inferred by the court from the fund of common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.

Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occured to the patient if due care had been exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine of RIL without medical evidence

Question 5

Captain of Ship Doctrine

Answer 5

during an operation in an operating room, a surgeon of record is liable for all actions conducted in the course of the operation

Question 6

Failure to secure results v. Occurrence of something unusual

Answer 6

Distinction must be made between failure to secure results and occurrence of something more than unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in the practice.

RIL can have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.