To understand the maxim “res ipsa loquitur’ we need to understand the concept of negligence first. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove the following:

• Duty: Defendant had a duty to care for the victim.
• Breach of duty: Defendant failed to provide this care.
• Causation: The breach of duty caused the victim’s injuries.
• Damages: The victim was indeed injured.

The plaintiff has the burden of proof to demonstrate these four elements of negligence. Thus, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to produce necessary evidence against the defendant to have the judgment in his favour. In some cases, mere facts of incidence taken place become prima facie evidence of negligence. The legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur relieves a plaintiff of his burden of proving any specific act of negligence on the part of the defendant. In a res ipsa loquitur case, the facts warrant an inference of negligence. A judge will determine whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.

Elements of ‘res ipsa loquitur’: 

1. The event that caused injury to the plaintiff would not have occurred if someone has not acted negligently. i.e., the incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence.
2. The evidence presented rules out all the possibilities of the fault of the plaintiff or third party. Thus, there is no contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff. i.e., it was caused by an instrumentality solely in the defendant’s control and that there are no other plausible explanations.
3. There is a duty of care of the defendant towards the plaintiff which he breached.

If these elements are met, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that he was not negligent

Let us understand with some examples:

1. Small things and tools like hammer may fall out of window injuring somebody walking below the window. It may be negligence or even mischief of somebody. But slipping of small things and tools is not unusual. Hence the doctrine res ipsa loquitur is not applicable.
2. If some heavier thing like a piece of furniture like chair, table falling out of window injuring somebody walking below the window is unusual. It is a clear indication of the negligence. Hence the doctrine res ipsa loquitur is applicable.
3. However, in some cases, there is no direct evidence of negligence. For example, spectators are watching a football game on a college ground. The spectators are sitting on temporarily fabricated benches. The benches collapse, injuring the spectators. The spectators file a personal injury action against the college, which built and maintained the benches. However, the spectators are unable to determine why the benches collapsed. Therefore, the spectators cannot prove that the college was negligent in any particular way. In such a case, a court may invoke the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. If the judge in the collapsing benches case decided to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, then the spectators would not have to show any specific act of negligence on the part of the college. They would merely have to prove that benches do not ordinarily collapse in the absence of negligence, that the college had exclusive control of the benches, and that the spectators did not contribute to the collapse of the benches by their own negligence. If the spectators proved those three elements, then the college would have to prove that it was not negligent in order to win the case.

Case Laws (Doctrine Applicable):

In Byrne v. Boadle,  2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (Exch. 1863) case, a man was walking on a sidewalk outside of a flour warehouse when a barrel of flour fell from a warehouse window. The man did not see the barrel fall out of the window, nor could he produce any evidence to indicate how or why the barrel fell from the window of the warehouse. Still, the court thought it apparent that the flour barrel almost certainly came from the flour manufacturer. Moreover, barrels of flour don’t ordinarily fall from warehouse windows in the absence of negligent conduct of the people running that warehouse. The warehouse workers had exclusive control of the barrel that fell out of the window and the plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to his injury. The court allowed the case to proceed because of the nature of the harm-causing event and Defendant’s relationship to it, i.e., as it was Defendant’s responsibility to control the contents of his warehouse, the accident itself is evidence of negligence.

In Read v. S. Pine Elec. Power Asso., 515 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1987) case, the Court held that under res ipsa loquitur, the defendant’s negligence may be presumed and thus does need not be proven.

In Hayes v. Peters, 645 S.E.2d 846 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) case, the Court said that under res ipsa loquitur, the finder of fact must be able to infer, through common knowledge and experience, that negligence occurred.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 case, due to the collapse of the Clock Tower situated opposite the Town Hall in the main Bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi, a number of persons died. The Clock Tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was exclusively under its control. It was 80 years’ old but the normal life of the structure of the building, which had fallen, could be 40-45 years, having regard to the kind of mortar used. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the fall of Clock Tower tells its own story in raising an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. Since the defendants could not prove the absence of negligence on their part, they were held liable. And also, a Clock tower in the heart of the city will need extra care and if it falls and causes injury to several people, the defendants will but obviously be held liable for the same under this principle. In such cases, direct evidence of proving negligence is not important, but the plaintiff has to establish a prima facie case, either by direct or circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s negligence.

In Nihal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh, August 23,1996 case, where scissors were left in the body of a patient during an operation. Then his condition worsened and he died. Scissors were recovered from the ashes after cremation. Compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 was awarded to the defendants of the deceased.

Case Laws (Doctrine Not Applicable):

In O’Neal v. Burlington N., Inc., 413 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) where Intoxicated man aged 30 years brought action to recover for injuries sustained when train ran over his left leg while he was sleeping or sitting on the ground next to the railroad tracks with one leg extended across the track.  Appellant contended that he should be considered as irresponsible as a child because he was extremely intoxicated. The Court of Appeals held that man was not within class of persons (child) intended to be protected by statute requiring railroads to build and maintain fences on each side of lines.

In K. Sobha v. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan, 2 November, 1998 case, the plaintiff, aged 35 years, who had an 8-year-old son, approached the defendant, a gynaecologists’, to consult regarding the non-conception of another child. She was advised to test tubing to remove possible obstruction in the fallopian tube. With the plaintiff’s consent, the needful was done by a simple procedure of blowing air through the apparatus into the vagina under controlled pressure. Subsequently, some infection had occurred in the plaintiff’s reproductive system and the same had to be removed. There was no evidence to indicate any negligence on the part of the defendant which could have caused the infection. The cause of infection was, however, unknown. So, under these circumstances, The Kerala High Court held that it was not a case of res ipsa loquitur, as the inference of negligence could not be drawn from the facts of the case.

In R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sayar Bai, AIR 1999 Raj 96 case, there was an accident which was alleged to have occurred due to the mechanical failure of the bus. There was no apparent evidence to indicate the negligence of the bus driver. It was held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied under the circumstances of the case and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation could be held liable only after its negligence was proved.

Defence Available to Defendant:

Defendants can still rebut the presumption of negligence that res ipsa creates by refuting one of the three elements listed above.

1. The defendant could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury could occur even if reasonable care took place to prevent it. In the flour-barrel example, the defendant can prove an earthquake could shake an item loose and it could fall out of the warehouse window.
2. Prove that the victim contributed to the incident in some way. In the flour-barrel example, if the defendant shows that the plaintiff was standing in an area marked as dangerous it could rebut the presumption of negligence created by res ipsa.
3. The defendant could establish that he did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care under the law, or that the injury did not fall within the scope of the duty owed. For example, if the law only imposes a limited duty on the defendant not to behave recklessly, then res ipsa will not help the plaintiff by creating an inference of negligence since a negligent action would not violate the duty owed to the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se are both doctrines that assist in proving breach of duty in certain negligence cases. The former allows negligence to be inferred from the circumstances and the latter allows it to be inferred from a violation of law. Both have many applications that allow causes of action to go forward where there is a lack of direct evidence proving negligence.

The post Res ipsa loquitur appeared first on The Fact Factor.

Meaning:

• The law does not concern itself about trifles

Meaning of De minimis non curat lex Word by Word:

• De: About
• Minimis: Minimal or very small things
• Non curat: not take care
• Lex: Body of law

Explanation:

• The law does not concern itself about trifles (small acts). Small acts are those acts about which a person with normal temper, normal sense and normal mind would not complain.
• For example, if A is driving on a road having potholes in a rainy season. There is mud on the road. When crossing the pothole the mud on the road get sprayed on pedestrian say B travelling near the car. A has not done it intentionally. If B has a normal sense he would not complain. In front of the court of law, A is not liable to B as the case is a trifle for it. Thus court does not waste their valuable time for trifles.
• Everybody knows that when wheat is taken to floor mill some part is always retained by the owner of the mill in the machine. But nobody complains about such small acts to the court and even the court law do not concern about such acts.
• The maxim is also recognized by IPC section 95.

 Case Laws:

Where the maxim De minimis non curat lex is applied.

Case – 1: Coward v/s Badley (1859) 4 H & N 478

Facts:

• A building was on fire. A bystander Badley (the defendant) touched the arm of a fireman (the plaintiff) to attract fireman’s attention to another part of the building where a fire was raging.

Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff filed a suit in a court against the defendant for battery (actual physical assault)
• Court held that the act is coming under the category called trifle where a person of normal temper and sense would not complain and hence the defendant is not liable for the tort of the battery as this amount to a trivial act.

Where the maxim De minimis non curat lex is not applied.

Case – 1: Helford v/s Bailey: (1849) 18 L. J. Q. B. 109

Facts:

• The plaintiff has exclusive Right of fishing in water in a particular water body. The defendant casts the net and draws a net out of the water. Plaintiff filled it as trespassing and file petition.

Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff plea was that he has the exclusive Right and the defendant has violated his right by trespassing and then fishing. There is no question he caught any fish or not. Thus the defendant has created an act of tort against the plaintiff and if repeated in future the defendant would tend to establish the right of fishing.
• Court held the view of the plaintiff is correct and though it was a trivial act, the court considered to be a tortious act and held the defendant guilty.

The post De minimis non curat lex appeared first on The Fact Factor.

• Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action.

Meaning Word by Word:

• Volenti: Voluntarily
• Non fit: Non-actionable
• Injuria: Injury to private Legal Rights.

Explanation:

• If a plaintiff has given his consent (free from coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence) to a legal act with the knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved, then he cannot complain against the act. This consent may be expressed or implied or by conduct.
• If the consent was not there the act may amount to be a tort.
• If the consent is not given, then any physical harm can be considered as an assault/battery. Example: A boxer participating in boxing match cannot sue opponent for injury because by participating in a match he had given his implied consent after knowing the possible injuries from the opponent. He cannot claim of assault by the opponent.
• If the consent is not given, then the entry in private property can be considered as trespassing. If somebody is allowed in a property by the consent of the owner, the owner cannot sue that person on the basis of trespassing.

Case Laws

Where the maxim is applied?

Case – 1: Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933) 1 K.B. 205     

Facts:

• There was an accident at the Brooklands Auto-Racing Club. A racing car shot over a railing and killed two spectators. Hall (the plaintiff) and Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (the defendant) were the parties.

Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff had a plea that it was negligence on the part of the driver of the racing car which shot over a railing and killed two spectators hence the kins of victims should be compensated.
• The defendant proved that this was the first time such accident has taken place.
• The Court also held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the racing car. Similarly, such types of danger to spectators were inherent in car racing. When spectators are purchasing tickets for such an event and joined the event as spectators they have implied consent about the knowledge of the nature and extent of the danger. The doctrine volenti non fit injuria is applicable. Hence the defendant is not liable for giving any compensation.
• Basis of Decision: The victim has prior knowledge of probable risk. He gave is implied consent by buying the ticket and by the presence at the event, so it was a voluntary act on the part of the victim.

 Case – 2: Scalon v/s Wedger: 156 Moss. 462

Where the maxim is not applied?

Case – 1:   Dann v/s Hamilton (1939) 1 K.B. 146

Facts:

• Dann (the plaintiff) chose to travel in the car even after knowing that the driver of the car is under the influence of alcohol and there are chances of an accident. There was no compulsion to travel through that car driven either by necessity or something else. There was an accident and the plaintiff suffered injuries. The driver was killed. The plaintiff sued the driver’s personal representative Hamilton (the defendant), for damages.

Court Proceedings:

• In the action against him, the defendant raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria. The plea of the defendant was when the plaintiff decided to travel through the car, she was knowing the driver was under the influence of the alcohol and there is a possibility of an accident, still she travelled through the car. It was under the free consent she was travelling through the car hence the maxim volenti non fit injuria should be applied and no compensation should be allowed to the plaintiff.
• Court held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria does not apply to the tort of negligence. Hence the plaintiff was entitled for collecting damages.

Case – 2: Haynes v/s Harwood: (1935) 1 K.B. 146

The post Volenti Non Fit Injuria appeared first on The Fact Factor.

• Actual damage suffered without legal injury

Meaning Word by Word:

• Damnum: Loss or damage
• Sine: Without
• Injuria: Injury to Private Legal Rights

Explanation:

• The damage may be in form of money, service, physical hurt, loss of health or reputation and loss of comfort. According to this maxim, these are mere damages without any violation of Legal Rights.
• The maxim refers to actual damage without violation of any Legal Right. In such case, the mere fact of damage does not mean there is an injury i.e. violation of Legal Rights. There are many acts which are not wrongful in the eyes of Law

Following damages are not actionable:

• Loss due to fair competition becaue a fair competition leads to the welfare of society as a whole.
• If the damage is caused due to good faith to avoid a greater degree of damage.
• If the damage is done because of a defamatory statement, which is given underprivileged occasions such as orders or instruction in the course.

Case Laws:

Where the maxim is applied:

Case – 1: Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) Y.B. 11 Hen. IV:

Facts:

• A Schoolteacher (the defendant) started a new school in front of Gloucester Grammar School. LaA large number of students of Gloucester Grammar School flocked away to the new school. Thus there was a monetary loss to the owner of Gloucester Grammar School. The owner of Gloucester Grammar School (the plaintiff) filed a writ petition and his plea was he suffered monetary loss due to the act of the defendant and claimed compensation from the defendant.

Court Proceedings:

• The Court’s view was that it was true that there is a financial loss (damage) to the plaintiff but the defendant has a Right to start any legal business and can have a fair competition. Hence the defendant had not violated any Legal Right of plaintiff hence no action can be taken against the defendant. As it is a fair competition, the plaintiff has an equal opportunity to improve its standard and increase his strength.

Case – 2: Chasemore v/s Richards (1875) 7 H.L.S. 349:

Injuria sine damno

Meaning:

• Legal injury suffered without actual damage

Meaning Word by Word:

• Injuria: Injury to private Legal Rights
• Sine: Without
• Damnum or Damno: Loss or damage

Explanation:

• The damage may be in form of money, service, physical hurt, loss of health or reputation and loss of comfort. According to this maxim, in spite of no damages in any form, If there is a violation of legal right then in court law remedy can be obtained.

Case Laws:

Where the maxim is applied:

Case – 1: Ashby v/s White (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938

Facts:

• It is a leading English case. Ashby (the plaintiff) tendered his vote in the parliamentary election. The returning officer at the polling booth named White (the defendant) refused to register the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff was a legitimate citizen of the constituency and a qualified voter. The vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election.

Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff filed a petition with a plea that being a qualified voter his vote was not registered. Hence he should get compensation from the defendant.
• The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff’s non-registered vote was in the favour of the candidate who won the election and thus there is no damage (injury) to him.
• Court held that the vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. Thus there is no actual loss (damage) to the plaintiff but his Legal Right of voting was violated by the defendant. To disallow a qualified voter to register his vote was a civil wrong and hence the plaintiff had the Right to have a remedy in the court of the law.
• The doctrine of injury sine damnum prevailed and compensation was offered to the plaintiff.

Case – 2: Mazetti v/s Williams: (1830) 1 B & Ad. 415

The post Damnum Sine Injuria appeared first on The Fact Factor.

• Where there is no wrong there is a remedy or it means whenever there is a legal right there is a remedy.

Explanation or Major Elements of the Maxim:

• This maxim is applicable when the ‘Legal Rights’ exist and both the ‘no wrong’ and remedy should be legal.
• A wrongful act must have been done which violated legal rights clearly.
• If there is no legal damage (injuria) this maxim is not applicable. Then the maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’ is applicable.
• This maxim can only be used when the law does not provide either any relief or sufficient relief. The court of law cannot reject an application seeking justice for violation of right, simply because there is no formal recognition or provision of remedy. Its the duty of the court of law to find a remedy in such case.

Limitations of the Maxim:

• If there is no legal damage (injuria) this maxim is not applicable.
• It is not applicable in all cases. Particularly in case of moral or ethical or some political wrongs or moral Rights this maxim is not applicable. In such cases, the action cannot be taken.
• There is no remedy for the breach of a solemn promise not made under seal or without any consideration.
• No action lies for a public nuisance unless the plaintiff proves that he has suffered more injury than suffered by other members of the society.

Juris Remark: By Justice Stephan:

• “The maxim would be more intelligible and correctly stated if it is reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy there is no legal wrong.

Case Laws Explaining Use of Maxim Ubi Jus bi remedium :

Cases where the maxim is applied:

Case – 1: Ashby v/s White (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938

Facts:

• It is a leading English case. Ashby (the plaintiff) tendered his vote in the parliamentary election. The returning officer at the polling booth named White (the defendant) refused to register the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff was a legitimate citizen of the constituency and a qualified voter. The vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election.

Legal Proceedings:

• The plaintiff filed a petition with a plea that being a qualified voter his vote was not registered. Hence he should get compensation from the defendant.
• The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff’s non-registered vote was in the favour of the candidate who won the election and thus there is no damage (injury) to him.
• Court held that the vote tendered by the plaintiff was in the favour of the candidate who won the election. Thus there is no actual loss (damage) to the plaintiff but his legal right of voting was violated by the defendant. To disallow a qualified voter to register his vote was a civil wrong and hence the plaintiff had the right to have a remedy in the court of the law.
• The maxim ubi Jus bi remedium prevailed in the court and compensation was offered to the plaintiff.

Case – 2: D.K. Basu v/s State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610

• Mr. D. K. Basu, the Executive Chairman, of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 26.08.1986 addressed a letter (a postcard) to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items published in newspapers namely, The Indian Express and The Telegraph regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody.
• The Supreme Court issued 11 guidelines to be followed during the arrest of an accused person.
• The Court further held that mere declaration of invalidity of an action (custodial torture) which is a legal wrong does not provide any remedy to the victim or the kins of the victim on the death of the victim. Only a punishment to guilty is not sufficient. To file a civil suit for compensation is a long and tedious process. Compensation to the victim or to the next keen in case of death of the victim must be made. Quantum of compensation should be by case. Emphasis should be on compensation than punishment

Cases where the maxim is not applied:

Case – 1: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v/s Nawab Khan Gulab Khan AIR 1997 SC 152:

Facts:

• A pavement dweller Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (the plaintiff) had encroached and had an unauthorized occupation on the footpaths on the main road in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation sought to demolish these encroachments without giving any notice to the encroachers.

Legal Proceedings:

• The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff. His plea was that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has sought to remove the encroachment without giving them an opportunity of being heard.
• High Court had given the judgment in the favour of Nawab Khan Gulab Khan that their plea should be accepted and he has the right of being heard. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation appealed in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court held that encroachment is an illegal act and to encroach is not a legal right of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has no right to ask for a remedy. The petitioner cannot demand compliance with the principles of natural justice.
• The plea of Nawab Khan Gulab Khan was rejected and the petition was dismissed.

Case – 2: Munster v/s Lamb : 11 Q.B.D. 588

• The principle was illuminated in this case is “For justice to be achieved, it is important that lawyers are uninhibited in their courtroom advocacy”.
• In this case, both the claimant and defendant were themselves, lawyers. During the trial of people accused of burgling his Brighton home, the defendants’ solicitor, Lamb, suggested that Munster kept drugs in his home for immoral purposes. Munster later sued him for defamation.
• Court held that Munster wasn’t entitled to damages as Lamb’s statement was made by a lawyer within the bounds of the privilege extended to the advocates and the words uttered by the defendant are only for a judicial inquiry. Hence the maxim does not hold good in this case.

The post Ubi Jus bi remedium appeared first on The Fact Factor.