Res Ipsa Loquitur is a maxim which means the thing speaks for itself.

This is an old phrase found in Cicero and other ancient writers and its has been used from time to time in other connections in the law.1 It refers to the situations when its assumed that a persons injury was caused by the negligent action of another party because the accident was the sort that wouldnt occurs someone was negligent. In a case where it appears on the face of it (prima facie) that a negligent act would not have occurred had the defendant taken proper care, the burden of proof lies on the defendant. The defendant had to prove that he was not negligent. For example; where a thing which was under his supervision or the supervision of his employees caused an accident, For instance, where an accident occurs due to skidding, the defendant has to show that the accident occurred not because of his negligence but because of latent defects in the car. The principle of res ipsa loquitur was recently applied in Chairman, M.P.E.B., Rampur, Jabalpur v Bhajan Gond 2. In this case, live electric wires maintained by the defendants had broken and were lying in a field. The plaintiff got in touch with the wires and died of electrocution. Inference was drawn that the defendants was not properly maintaining the electric transmission lines. The electricity board was held liable to pay damages to the chairman. Under section 1103 as a general rule, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. This means, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent, the initial burden of making out at least a prima facie case of negligence as against the defendant lies heavily on the plaintiff, but once this onus is discharged, it will be for the defendant to prove that the incident was the result of inevitable accident or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is not able to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant cannot be made liable4. In that way if the plaintiff has the burden to prove that he is liable, he is the one who cause negligence. And this is justice because once the plaintiff claim that he is liable is true that he is liable.
1 2

William P, John Wade, and Victor Schwartz. TORTS; cases and material 8th Edition. A.I.R 1999 M.P 17 3 The Tanzania Evidence Act 4 Bangia, Law of Torts.

Though as a general rule, the plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant, however in certain cases when the plaintiff need not to prove that and the inference of negligence is drawn from the facts. There is presumption of negligence accordingly to the maxim res ipsa loquitur which means thing speaks for itself. When an accident explains only one thing and that is that the accidents could not ordinarily occur unless the defendants had been negligent, the law raises a presumption of negligence on the part of defendant. In such a case it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove an action and nothing more.5 In that way the presumption of res ipsa loquitur which means things speaks for itself, takes places as a legal burden on the defendant when the defendant is the only one who has the duty to prove the negligence over the plaintiff. That he is the one who is the liable for the action or accidents. And this places the legal burden on the defendant as shown in the case of Byrne v Boadle6 , the plaintiffs evidence was that, he was walking in a public street past the defendants shop and that a barrel of flour fell upon him from a window above the shop, want of care on the part of the defendants was presumed and it was for him to show that the same was not for want of care on his part, for the barrels do not usually fallout from windows unless there is want of care. The rule of res ipsa loquitur only shifts the burden of proof and instead of the plaintiff proving negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is required to disprove it. If the defendant is able to prove that what apparently seems to be negligence was due to some factors beyond his control, he can escape liability7. All in all once the court decide to use the presumption of res ipsa loqutur in order to get evidence from the defendant and the defendant failed to give the vivid evidence the court should use this presumption which state as thing speaks for its self in order to give out right and equal judgment from the both side. So this presumptions its give justice once the court use it when the defendant failed to give out his evidence.

5 6 7

Bangia, law of torts. Court of Exchequer, 1863. Bangia, law of torts

TUMAINI UNIVERSITY IRINGA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FACULTY OF LAW LLB2

NAME OF THE STUDENT: COURSE: NATURE OF THE WORK: LECTURER: REG NO: DUE DATE:

Happiness E. Mrema. Law of Evidence.2. Individual Assignment. Massey. J. (Ms) 06517. 23rd.03.2012.

QUESTION: