#5410 - Proof Of Negligence - Irish Tort Law

Proof of Negligence

Mahon v Dublin & Lucan Electric Railway (KB 1905)

Facts

1. The deceased was found under the wheels of a train but no other evidence was adduced as to how the accident happened.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence – Balance of Probabilities

Judgment (Lord O'Brien LCJ)

• In light of the absence of evidence there is no grounds for a trial.

Byrne v Boadle (KB 1863)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was walking down the street when a barrell fell out of building onto him.

Issue

• Proof of negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur

Judgment

• In this case the barrell falling on the plaintiff was prima facie evidence of negligence and thus the onus was put on the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that it wasn't.

Scott v London & St Katherine Docks (Ex 1865)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was walking outside the defendants' warehouse when he was injured by 6 bags of sugar falling on him.

Issue

• Proof of negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur

Judgment

• Where something A) that is under the control of the defendant or his servants B) causes an injury C) through an action which, in ordinary circumstances does not occur when the defendant exercises proper care, then D) in the absence of an explanation from the defendants it affords reasonable evidence that the injury arose from their negligence and thus there is a case to go to a jury.

Treacy v Hagan (SC 1973)

Facts

1. Plaintiff injured himself while trying to fix a machine in his employer’s factory.

2. The machine had been in the employer’s factory for six months and it was part of the plaintiff’s duty to service it.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence - Res Ipsa Loquitur – If it applies

Judgment

1. Fitzgerald CJ

   • Res ipsa loquitur comes into play when the thing was under the control of the defendant, and the incident does not happen in ordinary circumstances when the defendant has taken due care.

   • There were a number of reasons in this case for the injury which were not under the management of the defendant-e.g. failing to keep a certain button depressed.

   • The doctrine does not apply.

2. Walsh J

   • The fact that an accident happened in this case was not proof that the machine was at fault in its design or construction.

   • There was no evidence that at any material time the machine was under the management of the defendants, nor was it in the same condition as it was when it left their control.

   • There was also no proof that the defect which existed was the thing that caused the injury.

   • The doctrine does not apply.

3. Henchy J

   • The circumstances of the injury did not raise a prima facie case that the thing which caused the injury was the defective construction or design of the machine.

   • The doctrine does not apply.

Rothwell v Motor Insurers Burea of Ireland (SC 2003)

Facts

1. The plaintiffs car slid out of control and crashed due to a spill of oil on the road.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence - Res Ipsa Loquitur – If it Applies

Judgment (Hardiman J)

• Res Ipsa Loquitur applies where it would be fundamentally unjust to require the plaintiff to prove something which is peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge.

• That is not the case in the present circumstances – neither party has knowledge as to how the oil came to be on the road.

Neill v Minister for Finance (SC 1948)

Facts

1. A postal van, the property of the respondent, stopped outside the plaintiff’s home to deliver a parcel.

2. One of the rear doors had been left open.

3. The plaintiff, a very young child was near the van, and sustained injuries to his hand.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur

Judgment

• There was no evidence to suggest how the injury occurred.

• The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where the ‘thing’ which caused the injury was under the defendant’s control, and such an accident does not normally occur except for want of due care.

• The ‘thing’ which caused the injury in this case - there are a number of reasonable possibilities that do not involve want of due care on the part of the defendant e.g. the child playing with the door and getting his hand stuck.

Lindsay v Mid-Western Health Board (SC 1993)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was a young girl who had an illness resembling that of acute appendicitis.

2. The patient was put under anesthetic for the operation and had no complications during the operation.

3. After the operation however she went into seizures, suffered irreparable brain damage and went into a coma.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Procedural Effect

Judgment

• In the case of a routine medical procedure where the patient fails to be returned to consciousness, there is a duty on the defendants to show that they took all reasonable care.

• This duty does not extend to showing the cause of the complications.

• The defendants in this case showed that they were not guilty of negligence from the beginning to the end of the operation.

Doherty v Reynolds (SC 2004)

Facts

1. The plaintiff suffered from gastric complaints.

2. He entered St James Hospital for an operation.

3. After the operation he began to suffer from pain and limitation of movement in his shoulder.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence -Res Ipsa Loquitur – Procedural Effect

Judgment

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Where the thing which caused the injury is found to be under the control of the defendant, and the accident is such that in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use the proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the lack of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.

• This principle may be of particular importance where the patient undergoes medical treatment under a general anaesthetic.

• In this case if the injury was accepted to be a traction injury, then it occurred as a result of something that was under the control of the defendants, and something that in ordinary circumstances would not happen had the defendants exercised due care.

• If the doctrine applied then it was up to the hospital either A) to show that the injury occurred without negligence on their part or B) that they carried out the entire procedure without negligence.

• The staff could not recall the details of what had happened at the time, yet this did not invalidate the hospital’s claim that they had a safety procedure in place, as they also had no recollection of diverting from procedure.

Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme (SC 1988)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was a farmer whose land was close to the defendants' factory.

2. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the negligent operation of the factory he suffered ill health and damage to his land and livestock.

Issue

• Proof of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Restatement

Judgment (Henchy J)

• The general rule of proof is that the plaintiffs must prove the elements of any tort alleged against the defendants.

• There are exceptions where elements of the tort are pre-eminently within the knowledge of the defendant.

• Thus in negligence, where damage has been done to the plaintiff in circumstances where such damage would not usually be caused without negligence on the part of the defendant, res ipsa loquitur will allow the act itself to be evidence of negligence, in the absence of countervailing proof on the part of the defendant.

• This onus shift arises because in such cases it would be palpably unfair for the plaintiff to prove something which is within the defendant's knowledge to the exclusion of his own – and it only rises in such cases.

• This is not the case here – here the defendants are no better equipped to prove that their fumes did not cause the damage.

• The...