Res Ipsa Loquitur

Held. The owner of a structure abutting a highway owes a duty to those using the highway to keep it in a safe condition; a properly maintained structure does not ordinarily collapse, so the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied and the burden lay on the Corporation to explain the fall; and the failure to test a building long past the life of its materials was negligence.

Why it matters here. It shows the maxim used against a public body, and it is the case to cite when the defendant argues that the defect was latent.

The limit: a rule of evidence, not of law

Facts. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, decided on 5 August 2005. Doctors were prosecuted for causing death by a rash or negligent act after a patient died when, on the complaint's version, an empty oxygen cylinder was connected.

Held. Among the Court's conclusions: res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence, operating in the domain of civil law, particularly in torts, and helping to determine the onus of proof in negligence actions; it cannot be pressed into service to determine liability for negligence in the domain of criminal law, where it has at most a limited application.

Why it matters here. A student who says the maxim "proves" negligence is wrong. It shifts the burden of explanation; it does not decide the case, and it does not travel into the criminal courts.

What the maxim is NOT

It is not a presumption of law. The defendant can rebut it with a reasonable explanation consistent with the absence of negligence.

It does not reverse the legal burden in every jurisdiction and every case. The safer statement, and the one the Indian cases use, is that the accident is evidence of negligence which calls for an explanation.

It does not apply where the cause of the accident is known. If the facts are fully known, the court decides on the facts, and there is nothing for the maxim to do.

It does not apply where the thing was not in the defendant's control.

A worked example

Four accidents, and whether the maxim applies.

A bag of cement falls from a building under construction and hits a passer-by. The maxim applies: bags do not ordinarily fall from buildings where proper care is taken, and the site was in the builder's control.

A surgical instrument is left inside a patient after an operation. The maxim applies: that does not ordinarily happen if care is taken, and the operating theatre is entirely within the hospital's control.

A bus swerves off a straight road on a clear day and overturns. The maxim applies, on Pushpabai.

A passenger slips on a wet floor at a station in the middle of a monsoon downpour. The maxim probably does not apply: floors get wet in a downpour without anybody being negligent, so the accident is not of a kind that speaks for itself, and the plaintiff must prove what the station master failed to do.

Quick revision

1. Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.
2. Three conditions: the thing was in the defendant's control, the accident does not ordinarily happen with proper care, and there is no explanation.
3. Effect: the plaintiff proves the accident and the defendant must explain.
4. Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., AIR 1977 SC 1735: a car leaving the road and striking a tree; the plea of inevitable accident failed for want of evidence.
5. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750: a collapsing clock tower; the burden lay on the Corporation to explain.
6. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180: it is a rule of evidence in civil law, with at most a limited application in criminal cases.
7. It does not apply where the cause is known or the thing was not in the defendant's control.

Test yourself

1. Explain res ipsa loquitur and its conditions. The maxim means that the thing speaks for itself. Where the thing which caused the damage was under the management or control of the defendant, and the accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen if those in control use proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that it arose from want of care. Its three conditions are therefore control, an accident of a kind that speaks of negligence, and the absence of an explanation. Its effect is procedural: the plaintiff proves the accident and stops, and the defendant must then explain how it happened without negligence on his part, as the Supreme Court put it in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., AIR 1977 SC 1735.

2. Is res ipsa loquitur a rule of law or a rule of evidence, and why does the difference matter? It is a rule of evidence. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, states it in terms: the maxim is only a rule of evidence, operating in the domain of civil law and especially in torts, and helping to determine the onus of proof in negligence actions; it cannot be pressed into service to determine liability in criminal law, where it has at most a limited application. The difference matters in three ways. It does not prove negligence, it calls for an explanation, and a reasonable explanation consistent with due care defeats it. It has no place where the cause of the accident is fully known, because the court then decides on the facts. And it cannot be used to convict, where the prosecution must prove gross negligence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Give two Indian illustrations of the maxim. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750, an eighty-year-old clock tower belonging to the Corporation collapsed in Chandni Chowk and killed three people; the mortar of its top storey had a life of forty to forty-five years and the Corporation had never tested it for latent defects. The Court held that a structure abutting a highway does not ordinarily collapse if properly maintained, applied the maxim, and placed on the Corporation the burden of explaining the fall, which it could not discharge. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., AIR 1977 SC 1735, a company car driven by its manager left the road and struck a tree so violently that the occupants were killed; the Court held the maxim applied, that it was enough for the claimants to prove the accident, and that the company, having pleaded inevitable accident without leading any evidence, was liable.