Proof of Negligence

Question 1

Scott v London

Answer 1

Elements for Res Ipsa Loquitor:
i) Must be reasonable evidence of negligence
ii) Under the management of the defendant or his servants
iii) Such as in the ordinary circumstances does not happen if they use proper care
iv) Affords reasonable evidence that it arose from the defendant’s lack of care

Question 2

Hanahan v Merck, Sharpe & Dome

Answer 2

‘a person who alleges a particular tort must, in order to succeed, prove all the necessary ingredients of that tort and it is not for the defendant to disprove anything’

Question 2

Byrne v Boadle

Answer 2

• Plaintiff injured by a barrel of flour which fell from a window above the defendant’s shop
• D claimed that the plaintiff could not prove that the flour fell out of the window due to D’s negligence, so should be dismissed
• Court dismissed the argument and held that an inference of negligence could be raised from the facts

Question 3

Bellizia v Meares

Answer 3

Bale of hay does not fall off a lorry without negligence

Question 4

Skinner v LB

Answer 4

Trains do not collide without negligence

Question 5

Lindsay v Mid-Western Health Board

Answer 5

• Girl went to hospital for appendix operation and ended up in a coma
• Held the application of the doctrine simply required that the defendant show that it had taken all reasonable care

Question 6

Neil v Minister for Finance

Answer 6

• P was two and a half years old
• Injured his hand in the door of a postal van while postman was delivering post to his house
  ® Unclear how accident happened
• P argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply
  □ Held
  ® Dismissed by court
  ® Injury could have arisen in a number of ways through the defendant’s negligence
  Could be said with certainty that the injury was a result of defendant’s negligence

Question 7

Rothwell vv MIBI

Answer 7

• Plaintiff was involved in a car accident on an oil spill
• Person responsible for spill was not identified
• Res ipsa loquitur could not be argued due to the fact that the knowledge of the thing that caused the accident lay within the defendant’s knowledge and was within his or her capacity to prove
• In this case, the defendant had no knowledge as to who or what caused the spill