Maxim:      Res Ispa Loquitur

Introduction:             In action for negligence, the burden of proof of negligence on the part of the defendant is on the plaintiff.  The plaintiff has to prove prima facie case of negligence as against the defendant, to this general rule doctrine of res ispa loquitur is an exception.

Doctrine Of Res Ispa Loquitur:          Though, as general rule, the plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant, there are, however certain cases when the plaintiff need not prove that and the inference of negligence is drawn from the facts.  There is presumption of negligence accordingly to the maxim res ispa loquitur which means 'the thing speaks for itself'.  When the accident explains only one thing and that is the accident could not ordinarily occur unless the defendant had been negligent, the law raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.  In such a case, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove accident and nothing more.  The defendant can, however avoid his liability by disproving negligence on his part.  For the maxim res ispa loquitur to apply, it is also necessary that the event causing the accident must have been in the control of the defendant.

Meaning:                    The term "Res Ispa Loquitur" means that the "thing speaks for itself." This one of the important doctrines in the law of Tort.  This doctrine is invoked in most of the cases of negligence.  Normally, in all civil cases the plaintiff has to prove whatever he alleges in his plaint.  In cases where the plaintiff alleges negligence on the part of the defendant but the real negligent aspect about the accident is exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant, then the plaintiff will not be in position to prove the same.  Thus, this doctrine has been involved, that is to say, take for example, in a motor accident case a claimant alleges that a particular car knocked his down and it was being driven rashly, etc.  Here, the claimant will not be able to prove whether the brakes of the car were in proper working condition or not.  The moment the plaintiff proves that the car knocked his down, then the burden of proof that it was not due the negligence of the defendant shakes on the shoulder of the defendant.  That is, here the defendant will have to discharge his liability by proving that the brakes were not working in proper condition and also that he was not negligent.

Case Law:

1. H. Khodwa Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996: In this case Supreme Court held that State Government liable for the negligence of the doctor of the hospital run by the State Government.  In this case the patient had gone a sterilization operation after child birth.  A mop was left inside the abdomen of the patient by doctor performing the operation.  Patient died after a few days.  Court presumed negligence by doctor performing operation.
2. Chairman M.P.E.B. Rampur, Jabalpur Vs. Bhajan Gond, AIR 1999 M.P. 17: In this case, live electric wires maintained by the defendants had broken and were lying in a field.  The wife of the plaintiff ( Respondent) got in touch with the wires and died of electrocution.  The court had drawn the inference that the electricity board was not properly maintaining the electric transmission lines.  The electricity board was held liable to pay dameges to the claimant.

Conclusion:    The doctrine of 'res ispa loquitur ' is followed by the Indian Courts in most of the cases of negligence wherein the burden of proof is shifted from plaintiff to defendant. Instead of the plaintiff proving negligence, the defendant is require to disprove it.