Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence without explicitly doing so in certain tort cases. It applies when an injurious action satisfies four criteria, including that the accident would not have occurred without negligence and that the action was caused by an instrument under the sole control of the defendant. It is accepted in the US, Hong Kong, and Scotland, but not in Canada. England uses it to suggest a strong presumption in favor of negligent assumption, but it cannot be conclusive proof.
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase meaning “the thing speaks for itself”. It is a method of proving wrongdoing in certain types of civil proceedings. In other words, it allows the plaintiff in some tort cases to simply invoke the res ipsa loquitur to prove the negligent element of a tort.
Typically, when a plaintiff sues a defendant for a tort, the plaintiff must prove several elements of a case. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally or negligently caused the injuries to occur. Second, the plaintiff must prove that he actually suffered harm as a result of the defendant’s actions.
When res ipsa loquitur is invoked, the doctrine allows the plaintiff to win his case without explicitly proving negligence. In essence, it is a doctrine that states that the action that caused the harm was so obviously negligent that the action speaks for itself and no additional proof is required. If this doctrine applies and is accepted by the court, the plaintiff need only prove that he has suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s actions in order to win the case.
Res ipsa loquitur is an acceptable form of proof in the United States, Hong Kong and Scotland. It is known by different names in different countries. Canada has essentially nullified the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. England uses the doctrine to suggest a strong presumption in favor of negligent assumption, but it cannot be conclusive proof.
This doctrine is appropriate when an injurious action satisfies four separate criteria. If these four criteria apply, it can be relied on to show that the action was negligent. This means that the plaintiff will be able to win his case without explicitly proving malpractice.
The four criteria for the application of the res ipsa loquitur are that: the accident would not have occurred if it were not for negligence; in the particular situation has not occurred without negligence involved; the action or event was caused by an instrument which was under the sole control of the defendant; and the accident or injury was in no way caused or contributed to by the plaintiff in the case. This means that if the plaintiff was guilty of concurrence, or even acted in any way which led to the accident, the plaintiff cannot invoke res ipsa loquitur. It also means that anything that harmed the plaintiff must have been handled or controlled solely by the defendant and by no other individual.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
