LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW — Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Inapplicability Where Facts Are Known
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Reliance on res ipsa loquitur is a confession that the plaintiff has no direct evidence of negligence. It will not apply where facts are equally consistent with accident as with negligence, or where there is evidence of how the accident happened and difficulty is only in apportioning blame between two negligent drivers.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Royal Ade Nigeria Ltd. & Anor v. National Oil and Chemical Marketing Company Plc (2004) NLC-32000(SC) at p. 11; Paras C–E.
"Reliance on the doctrine of 'res ipsa' is thus a confession by the plaintiff that he has no direct and affirmative evidence of the negligence complained of against the defendant but that the surrounding circumstances amply establish such negligence. In relying on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff merely proves the resultant accident and injury and then asks the court to infer therefrom negligence on the part of the defendant. The doctrine will not apply where: i. the facts proved are equally consistent with accident as with negligence. ii. there is evidence of how the accident happened and the difficulty arise merely from an inability to apportion blame between two negligent drivers."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Res ipsa loquitur is a last resort when no direct evidence of negligence exists. The doctrine does not apply where facts are equally consistent with accident. It also does not apply where the accident’s cause is known but blame cannot be apportioned. The principle applies to tort law and negligence. The rule prevents reliance on res ipsa when specific evidence explains the occurrence. Known facts displace the presumption.
