45 Sentences With "res ipsa loquitur" | Random Sentence Generator

Yeah, as they say in ancient Rome ... res ipsa loquitur.

So there it is, or as Suetonius might say, Res ipsa loquitur.

The Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself.

That's 21-year-old Sophia is in the copper-colored metallic bikini ... as they say in the law -- res ipsa loquitur.

" Here are three other Latin words that Republicans should recall when reading the summary transcript of the Trump-Zelensky July 25 call: "Res ipsa loquitur" — "the thing speaks for itself.

In South African law (which is modelled on Roman Dutch law), there is no doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, although the phrase is used regularly to mean the "facts speak for themselves". Res ipsa loquitur does not shift any burden of proof or onus from one party to the other. The phrase is merely a handy phrase used by lawyers.

The first newspaper at the Law Center was The Hoya, Law School Edition (1933–36). This was followed by Res Ipsa Loquitur, which started publishing in 1936. Res Ipsa Loquitur served as the student newspaper and alumni magazine until 1994, when it was replaced by the all-alumni publication Georgetown Law. The Law Weekly began in 1966, and was originally part of the legal writing requirement program.

Ybarra v. Spangard25 Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal.1944) was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur.

Byrne v Boadle (2 Hurl. & Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863) is an English tort law case that first applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

"The Law of falling Objects: Byrne v. Boadle and the Birth of Res Ipsa Loquitur", page 1079, by G. Gregg Webb, Stanford Law Review, vol. 59, iss.4.

Under United States common law, res ipsa loquitur has the following requirements: #The event does not normally occur unless someone has acted negligently; #The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party caused the injury; and #The type of negligence in question falls within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. Most American courts recognize res ipsa loquitur. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328D describes a two-step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur. The first step is whether the accident is the kind usually caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident.

In this case, the plaintiff could not be assisted by res ipsa loquitur and had to go on to prove that the flat tyre was caused by the transport company's negligence.

Hong Kong is one of the common law jurisdictions that use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Some lawyers prefer to avoid the expression res ipsa loquitur (for example, Hobhouse LJ in Radcliff v. Plymouth). But other lawyers (and judges too) still find the expression a convenient one (for example, see the judgement of Mr Justice Bokhary, a Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, in Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong).

In lawsuits, the principle of res ipsa loquitur was easily affirmed because "an inadvertent weapon discharge is a negligent discharge". Overland Park Police Department (Kansas) used the revolver before going to semi-automatic Beretta 92 pistols.

In Canada the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been largely overturned by the Supreme Court. In case of Fontaine v. British Columbia (Official Administrator)[1998] 1 S.C.R. 424 the Court rejected the use of res ipsa loquitur and instead proposed the rule that once the plaintiff has proven that the harm was under exclusive control of the defendant and that they were not contributorily negligent a tactical burden is placed on the defendant in which the judge has the discretion to infer negligence unless the defendant can produce evidence to the contrary.

The expression res ipsa loquitur is not a doctrine but a "mode of inferential reasoning" and applies only to accidents of unknown cause. Res ipsa loquitur comes into play where an accident of unknown cause is one that would not normally happen without negligence on the part of the defendant in control of the object or activity which injured the plaintiff or damaged his property. In such a situation the court is able to infer negligence on the defendant's part unless he offers an acceptable explanation consistent with his having taken reasonable care.

He later acknowledged in his own autobiography that he did not then fully comprehend that her case would become a far-reaching landmark case. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, following the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in the Anglo-American common law that says in a tort lawsuit a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach, and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

The claimant may raise res ipsa loquitur to shift the evidential burden to the defendant. To do so, following criteria must be satisfied: 1\. The incident occurred in an unexplainable fashion; 2\. The incident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events if not defendant's negligence; and 3\.

In English tort law, the effect of res ipsa loquitur is a strong inference in favour of the claimant that negligence has taken place. It does not however fully reverse the burden of proof (Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat, 1988). The requirement of control is important in English law.

Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810, is an English tort law case concerning the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"). It deals with the law of negligence and it set an important precedent in so called "trip and slip" cases which are a common occurrence.

If found, res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence, although in most cases it does not necessarily result in a directed verdict. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17, adopts a similar test, although it eschews the exclusive control element. The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v.

"Lewis v. Carpenter Co., 252 Va. 296, 477 S.E.2d 492 (1996). A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent.

Gibson's notable cases as Chief Justice include his 1944 opinion in Ybarra v. Spangard concerning the negligence doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur in torts. In 1948, he voted with the 4-3 majority in Perez v. Sharp that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. In April 1952, he wrote the decision in Sei Fujii v.

Doherty v Reynolds and St. James's Hospital Board [2004] IESC 42 was a case of medical negligence in which the Supreme Court of Ireland confirmed that, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where an injury would not be expected to occur without negligence in the management of something, negligence on the part of those charged with the thing's management may be presumed from the mere fact of injury.

This is a Latin phrase that means "the thing speaks for itself." It is a rare alternative basis of breach. Ordinarily, it only applies when the plaintiff has little or limited access to the evidence of negligent conduct. Res ipsa loquitur requires that the defendant have exclusive control over the thing that causes the injury and that the act be one that would not ordinarily occur without negligence.

Later cases like MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. broadened the duty of care to all who could be foreseeably injured by one's conduct. Over time, negligence concepts have arisen to deal with certain specific situations, including negligence per se (using a manufacturer's violation of a law or regulation, in place of proof of a duty and a breach) and res ipsa loquitur (an inference of negligence under certain conditions).

Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees went through the California Court of Appeals, first district, division one. The court determined that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") was applicable to this case, meaning that Salgo was able to meet the burden of proof for negligence and that his paralysis was caused by something under the control of the doctors.

The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways: The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.

61 Am Jur 2nd "Physicians, Surgeons, Etc" Actions for malpractice are controlled by the general rules of evidence in civil procedure.29A Am Jur 2nd "Evidence", §§ 29-30 A malpractice action necessarily involves the question of requisite care and skill applied in a medical case. With the exception of res ipsa loquitur cases, medical opinion about the care is essential. This involves the necessity to obtain a subpoena duces tecum for medical records.

A bus owned by Hawkes Bay Motor Company was struck on a bend in a road by a car driven on the wrong side of the road by Russell. They later sued Russell for the cost of the damage, to which Russell successfully defended on the basis that he had blacked out due to a medical condition. HBMC appealed that under res ipsa loquitur, that due to the facts here, the onus of proof should be of Russell to prove the medical condition.

"where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct." The contrary position would bar the application of res ipsa loquitur when there is no showing that the cause of the injury was the act of any particular defendant or instrumentality.

Res ipsa loquitur often arises in the "scalpel left behind" variety of case. For example, a person goes to a doctor with abdominal pains after having his appendix removed. X-rays show the patient has a metal object the size and shape of a scalpel in his abdomen. It requires no further explanation to show the surgeon who removed the appendix was negligent, as there is no legitimate reason for a doctor to leave a scalpel in a body at the end of an appendectomy.

The underpinning of this doctrine is that a plaintiff should not be barred from seeking recovery simply because she does not know who caused her injury. The defendants are usually the parties in the best position to have the relevant information. Distinguish alternative liability from the smoke-out function of res ipsa loquitur seen in the leading case of Ybarra v. Spangard. In Ybarra, the plaintiff brought all defendants who could have possibly been negligent (breached a duty of reasonable care) so that they could show which party actually was negligent.

Tort requires those responsible (or "at fault") for harming others to compensate the victims, usually in money.For instance, a supermarket may not have been safe enough for its customers to shop in by failing to mop up a spillage of yogurt on the floor. Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 219, where the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was applied where someone slipped on yogurt in a supermarket. An employer may have failed to properly fence off some dangerous machinery, which exposes workers to risk of injury.

Tesco argued that the judge had not applied the leading case, Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 W.L.R. 810 properly, which uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine (i.e. if it were not for the puddle, how else could it have happened?). Tesco argued that there was no way the puddle could have made her slip 25 paces later, but their argument was dismissed because they could not come up with a better explanation. Peach v Tesco Stores Plc [1998] C.L.Y. 1665, Mrs Peach, 65, slipped on a mangetout (a pea pod) in the store and hurt her hip, requiring surgery.

Specifically Wansbrough thinks it must have been completed by Ibn Hisham around the time he composed his Sīra of Muhammad because of the "preponderance of Quran-based (historicized) narratives therein". Wansbrough thought evidence for the "seventh-century Hijaz" as the location of the Islam's origins was "[b]ereft of archaeological witness and hardly attested in pre-Islamic Arabic or external sources", but instead owed "its historiographical existence almost entirely to the creative endeavour of Muslim and Orientalist scholarhship".Wansbourgh, John, Res Ipsa Loquitur: History and Mimesis, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987, p.

Yes, res ipsa loquitur can prove that the instrument causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury does not ordinarily happen unless there was negligence. All persons and instrumentalities exercising control over a person are liable for any unnecessary harm that results. Every defendant who had control over the plaintiff's body, for any period, was bound to exercise ordinary care to see that no unnecessary harm came to him, and all would be liable for failure. The injury was distinctly a part of his body not subject for treatment or even within the area covered by the operation.

Traynor also felt that the majority's reasoning approached a rule of strict liability even though the decision was ostensibly based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: > In leaving it to the jury to decide whether the inference has been > dispelled, regardless of the evidence against it, the negligence rule > approaches the rule of strict liability. It is needlessly circuitous to make > negligence the basis of recovery and impose what is in reality liability > without negligence. If public policy demands that a manufacturer of goods be > responsible for their quality regardless of negligence there is no reason > not to fix that responsibility openly. 24 Cal.

THE OBLIGATION TO PROVE ONE'S ASSERTION is burden of proof. Whether or not the defendant in a given case has conducted himself below the standard of "a reasonable person" is a question of fact and it is for the claimant to prove this fact. However, in certain situations it is unlikely that a certain event could take place without the defendant's negligence, for example if a surgeon left a scalpel in the patient's body. In such cases, it is said that "the thing speaks for itself" (res ipsa loquitur), and it is for the defendant to show that the fact causing the damage was not attributable to his negligence.

The claimant's appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 13 October and 14 October 1949, and judgment was delivered by on 2 November 1949. All three judges, Somervell, Singleton and Jenkins LJJ, dismissed nuisance on the same grounds as Oliver J. Somervell LJ, dissenting, held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendants had not taken due and reasonable care, so was not negligent either. However, the majority, Singleton and Jenkins LJJ, held that an accident of this sort called for an explanation, and that the defendants were aware of the potential risk. On that basis, applying the legal maxim of res ipsa loquitur, the defendants were found negligent.

The argument of the murder of Clodius being in the public interest is only presented in the written version of the Pro Milone, as, according to Asconius, Cicero did not mention it in the actual version delivered.Cicero, Pro Milone, 10 The speech also contains the first known use of the legal axiom res ipsa loquitur but in the form res loquitur ipsa, (literally, "the thing itself speaks", but it is usually translated as "the facts speak for themselves"). Cic. Pro Milone 53“Medical Jurisprudence”, p. 88, Jon R. Waltz, Fred Edward Inbau, Macmillan, 1971, The phrase was quoted in an 1863 judgment in the English case Byrne v Boadle and became the tag for a new common law doctrine.

England exported its common law and statute law to most parts of the British Empire, and many aspects of that system have survived after Independence from British rule, and the influences are often reciprocal. "English law" prior to the American Revolutionary Wars (American War of Independence) is still an influence on United States law, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and principles. After independence, English common law still exerted influence over American common law – for example, Byrne v Boadle (1863), which first applied the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Jurisdictions that have kept to the common law may incorporate modern legal developments from England, and English decisions are usually persuasive in such jurisdictions.

The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself". The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech Pro Milone. The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent to 52 BC, some 1915 years before the English case Byrne v Boadle and the question whether Charles Edward Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case.

A suit cannot be brought based on an unsafe condition of the street unless the municipality is first given reasonable notice and allowed a reasonable amount of time to remedy it. The operation of public recreational facilities is stated by the state statute to fall within the immunity of governmental function. Virginia does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when applied against local governments providing such services, so the civil plaintiff is required to prove that the local government is responsible for the condition that led to damage or injury. Political subdivisions may waive their sovereign immunity, and wherever and whenever a local government purchases insurance for its vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and buses, that local government will be ruled to have waived its sovereign immunity up to the amount of the policy.