Doctrines

Now, the said Latin maxim, res ipsa loquitur, [the thing speaks for itself], whose essential element is that the mere fact of the happening of the accident should tell its own story so as to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006) [seventeenth edition], paragraph 5-81, page 261, only operates under certain conditions. They are: (a) proof of the happening of an unexplained occurrence;(b) the occurrence must be one which would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence on the part of somebody other than the plaintiff; and (C) the circumstances must point to the negligence in question being that of the defendant rather than that of any other person, PSHS Management Board and Anor v. Goshwe (2012) LPELR-9830 (SC), citing Royal Ade Nig Ltd v. NOCM Co. Plc [2004] 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 206. Oputa, JSC, further explained that: This Latin maxim is applicable to actions for injury by negligence where no proof of such negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence...see, Batavia (1845) 2 W. Rolf 407; The Valdis (1915) 31 T.L.R. 111. 'Res ipsa loquitur' is no more than a rule of evidence affecting the onus of proof. The essence of the maxim is that an event which in the ordinary course of things, was more likely than not to be caused by negligence was by itself evidence of negligence depending of course on the absence of explanation. The doctrine merely shifts the onus on the defendant. If the facts are sufficiently known or where the defendant gave an explanation, the doctrine will no longer apply: Barkway v. South Wales Transport (1950) 1 All E.R.392. 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...

Res ipsa loquitur is not itself a tort. Rather it is a rule of evidence suggesting that the injury or harm may not have occurred in the absence of the alleged negligence. The latin maxim – res ipsa loquitur, means "the thing speaks for itself". It raises presumption in favour of the plaintiff that prima facie the defendant was negligent, unless he offers satisfactory explanation as to how the damage or injury suffered by the plaintiff occurred and that he was not in any way negligent.
Res ipsa loquitur does not apply if the cause of the harm or damage is known. Thus, as H. L. A Hart & Tony Honore stated in their work: "causation In The Law pages 419 20 (2nd ed. 1985):
The application of the principle nearly always presupposes that some part of the causal process is known, but what is lacking is evidence of its connection with the defendant's act or omission.

CHUDI VERDICAL COMPANY LIMITED V. IFESINACHI INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR:LGC(8/6/2018)G