Tort: Res Ipsa Loquitor

• In the case of Scott v London & St Katharine Docks (1865), sacks of sugar fell on the claimant from the open door of a warehouse while passing through the defendant's dock, severely injuring him
• Legal question: Could the injured man have to prove negligence?
• Test for negligence:

  • Did the defendant control the thing?
  • Was the event unlikely to happen in the absence of negligence?
  • If both answers are yes, there is "prima facie" evidence of negligence
• Erle CJ stated that if the thing is under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such that proper care would prevent it, it indicates negligence in the absence of explanation by the defendants
• In Ward v Tesco (1976), the defendant slipped on a pink yoghurt-like substance while shopping, with a half-empty yoghurt pot found nearby
• The defendant had no evidence of what led to the spillage but showed evidence of delayed response to spills in the past
• It was presumed that Tesco was negligent in the claimant's case
• In Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873), the claimant leant on a defective train door while it traveled between stations
• In Widdowson v Newgate Meat Corp. (1997), the claimant was hit by a meat lorry on a pavement at night
• Burden of proof in a tort case:

  • Claimant: Prove the defendant was negligent
  • Defendant: Prove you were NOT negligent
  • Burden of proof is on the balance of probability
• In a Daily Mail "April Fool" story, the concept of "Res ipsa loquitur" was mentioned
• The owner of the tyre would need to prove they were NOT negligent on the balance of probability