A reversal of the burden of proof. Defendant has to disporve negligence. It is so obvious D was negligent, waste of time having C prove this.
1 of 5
Res Ipsa Loquitur - Requirements
APE. A = Absence - dependent on absence of an explanation. P = Proper - Wouldn't of happened if proper care had been taken. E= Exclusive - Within exculsive control of defendant.
2 of 5
Scott V London and St Katherine Docks Co. (1865)
C was hit by 6 heavy bags of sugar that fell from D's warehouse. No explanation for why bags of sugar fell. Burden of proof shifted to D as easier for him to prove he was not negligent. Res Ipsa used.
3 of 5
Mahon V Osborne (1938)
A surgeon who leaves equipment inside a patients body is liable for negligence, unless they can prove otherwise. Res Ipsa used.
4 of 5
Turner V Mansfield - Example of when Res Ipsa Loquitur did not apply.
C drove D's dustcart and was injured. As C was in control of vehicle Res Ipsa did not apply.
5 of 5
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
APE. A = Absence - dependent on absence of an explanation. P = Proper - Wouldn't of happened if proper care had been taken. E= Exclusive - Within exculsive control of defendant.
Back
Res Ipsa Loquitur - Requirements
Card 3
Front
C was hit by 6 heavy bags of sugar that fell from D's warehouse. No explanation for why bags of sugar fell. Burden of proof shifted to D as easier for him to prove he was not negligent. Res Ipsa used.
Back
Card 4
Front
A surgeon who leaves equipment inside a patients body is liable for negligence, unless they can prove otherwise. Res Ipsa used.
Back
Card 5
Front
C drove D's dustcart and was injured. As C was in control of vehicle Res Ipsa did not apply.
Comments
No comments have yet been made