Standard of Proof – Res Ipsa Loquitur Unit 2, Section B

Recap

Standard of Proof For civil cases the burden of proof is on the claimant This means that to win the case the claimant has to prove all three elements of the tort of negligence. The standard of proof is based on the ‘balance of probabilities’ (Judge decides who is most likely to be right).

Res Ipsa Loquitur However, in some situations it is very difficult for a claimant to know exactly what happened (the cause of the accident), even though it seems obvious that the defendant must have been negligent. For this, the claimant can use the Res Ipsa Loquitur rule The ‘things speak for themselves’

Res Ipsa Loquitur For a case of Res Ipsa Loquitur, the claimant must show: The defendant was in control of the situation which caused the injury. The injury was more likely than not to have been caused by negligence. If the claimant can show these two things, the burden of proof moves to the defendant who has to prove that s/he was not negligent.

Case Example… Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks (1865) Research the case of Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks and summarise the facts on the whiteboard.

Case Example… Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks (1865) Facts: The claimant was hit by six heavy bags of sugar which fell from the defendant’s warehouse. The claimant did not know what happened to make the bags fall. They could only prove that the bags had indeed fallen and caused injury to the claimant.

Held… Held The court held that the facts spoke for themselves and it was therefore, for the defendant to prove they had not been negligent. The defendant was found to have caused the claimant's injuries, even though it could not be established exactly how the bags of sugar had come to fall upon him.

Case Example… Mahon v Osborne (1939) Research the case of Mahon v Osborne and summarise the facts on the whiteboard.

Case Example… Mahon v Osborne (1939) Facts: After an operation in hospital, the claimant was found to have a swab left inside them. The claimant did not know how the duty of care was breached as they were unconscious throughout the operation.

Held… Held The courts held that the swabs could only have got inside the stomach if someone had been negligent, this was therefore considered to be evidence of negligence.