Res Ispa Loquitur Flashcards
Fleming
the maxim contains nothing new, it is based on common sense, since it is a matter of ordinary observation and experience in life that sometimes a thing tells its own story
Scott v London
P was struck by bags of sugar which fell from a warehouse, court applied res and found the owner of the warehouse liable, described that res can apply in limited situations where it can be shown the injury would not have happened if those who have the management use proper care
Hanrahan v MSD
where damage is caused in circs where damage would not usually be caused w/o negligence the rule will allow the act relied on to be evidence of negligence
Quill
Hanrahan confines the application of res to circs surrounding the cause of the injury to be known, D was responsible for the control of the cause and the injury is one which would not occur unless there was negligence in management/control
Neil v Minister for Finance
baby injured when postman shut door on his hand, res was not applied as ‘the gap which exists between the evidence as to the movements of the driver and the injury of the child could be filled in a number of ways’
Foley v Quinnsworth
doctrine not applied where P slipped on floor as there was no evidence of spillages on the floor, there could have been another reason for the slip
Lindsay v Mid-Western Health Board
girl went into hospital for simple procedure, ended up in a coma, uncertainty as to the cause, therefore, there was an inference of negligence, rebutted as D put forward expert evidence to show he had used reasonable care in the operation. O’Flaherty J explained that D is not required to show how the injuries came about, all that is required is that the defendant
establishes he acted with reasonable care, to displace the inference
Hanrahan criteria
D must be in a superior position to provide proof of the issue and it would be unjust to require P to prove that issue
Rothwell v MIBI
P skidded on oil on the road and sought compensation by applying res, court endorsed Hanrahan and held res would only apply where a particular element lies pre-eminently within D’s knowledge, teh source of the oil did not lie within the exclusive knowledge of MIBI so res could not apply
Healy
despite the clarity of O’Flaherty J’s judgement in Lindsay, there has been some confusion as to the
application of the rule with some cases having applied it as a substantial rule of law rather than an evidential one
O’Brien v Derwin
P was driving, loose horse struck his car, he was injured, horses were
unclaimed, suspected they came from a nearby field, court satisfied the D had not satisfied the court he had acted with reasonable care and on the evidence the court held that res applied and he was negligent
Merriman v Greenhills
Blayney J for the maj found that, in that case where res applied, the explanation by the Ds did not go far enough, it did not explain why the leaf of the spring broke, satisfied for justice to be done the doctrine should be applied so as to prove that they were not negligent’, Blayney J interpreted res as a substantive rule of law reversing the burden of proof
By contrast (M v G)
Murphy J for the min, in line with Lindsay, held ‘it is sufficient for the D’s purpose to meet the case made against it’
Quinn v SE Health Board
reasoning suggests that in some cases D’s failure to provide an alternative explanation for the P’s injuries should not in itself be sufficient to raise an inference of negligence, the courts should have regard to the means of the knowledge on either side along with the extent of control
Healy
reversing the BoP does not consider the inequality of positions of the parties, the fact that D is in a better position than that of P to explain how the injuries occurred should not in itself be sufficient to raise an inference of negligence – the courts should have regard to the means of the knowledge on either side/ extent of control
