Res ipsa loquitur

This is a rule of evidence. A court may infer negligence from the bare fact that the accident happened. It applies when the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant's control and such accidents do not normally happen without carelessness.

1. The thing causing the harm was under the defendant's control (or that of their servants).
2. The accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence.
3. There is no explanation of the cause from the plaintiff's side.

• Byrne v. Boadle (1863), Court of Exchequer, England: a barrel of flour fell from the defendant's warehouse window and injured a passer-by. Held: the fact of the fall was enough to suggest negligence.
• Scott v. London & St Katherine Docks Co. (1865), Court of Exchequer Chamber, England: bags of sugar fell from a crane's load and injured a man on the ground. Held: the accident itself was reasonable evidence of negligence unless the defendant explained it.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966), Supreme Court: a municipal clock tower collapsed and killed people nearby. Held: the maxim applied and the Corporation had to explain the collapse.

Not applicable: common law rule of evidence.

• It is not an irrebuttable presumption of liability, and it is not a separate tort.
• It shifts the burden of explaining the accident to the defendant. A satisfactory explanation of how the accident happened without carelessness defeats it.

Indian courts apply the English rule. Subhagwanti is the standard Indian illustration.

Asked as "explain res ipsa loquitur with the conditions and cases". Remember Byrne v. Boadle and Scott.

Picture a barrel falling out of a warehouse window: nobody needs a witness to see something went wrong.

The accident itself is evidence of negligence, and the defendant must explain it.