Res ipsa loquitur
The Res ipsa loquitur principle (Latin: "The matter itself speaks.") Is an institute developed in common law to facilitate evidence in civil proceedings in the event of negligent damage . It is comparable to the prima facie evidence known in German procedural law . It does not generally lead to an objective reversal of the burden of proof , but only entitles the court or jury to consider a fact or a course of events as proven, provided that the opposing side cannot provide any counter-evidence; it thus prevents a directed verdict .
history
As far as can be seen, the principle goes back to Marcus Tullius Cicero , who used it in his speech for Milo ( Pro Milone ) in defense of Titus Annius Milo , who was accused of murder .
In 1863 the principle was significantly shaped by the decision of Byrne v Boadle in tort law of English common law . In the case, the plaintiff sought compensation from the defendant owner of a flour warehouse, because a flour barrel rolled out of the warehouse and injured the plaintiff, who was on the street. Although two eyewitnesses had observed the event, the plaintiff could not prove that the owner of the camp acted negligently, as the cause of the accident remained unknown. Taking various alternative events into account, the court came to the conclusion that, based on general life experience, it was obvious that rolling out a barrel is the responsibility of the owner of the warehouse. Even this conclusion was sufficient for the court, without the complete clarification of the facts, to affirm that the defendant had to be represented. If this should not have been the case, it is up to the defendant to provide evidence to the contrary.
The decision was the hour of birth of the principle res ipsa loquitur , which originally stated that if a person is injured by a causal event that originates from the exclusive control of another, the other person must also provide evidence of exoneration in the event of injury. The original requirements for exclusive control have developed differently in the individual common law countries, so that today the control area is subject to different rigid requirements and this element is in some cases completely dispensed with.
United States of America
In addition to other common law legal systems, American law also knows the principle of res ipsa loquitur .
Legal character
Res ipsa loquitur is used in the context of American tort law to prove breach of duty and causality. In principle, the plaintiff has three options for providing this evidence:
- Res ipsa loquitur;
- by law;
- direct evidence of negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur is only a sub-case of prima facie evidence. Only in special cases does the principle actually lead to a reversal of the burden of proof. If the reason for the negligence is positively known and proof can be provided directly, res ipsa loquitur is not applicable.
requirements
Under res ipsa loquitur , the plaintiff has to prove that, based on general life experience, it is more likely that his damage results from the negligence of the defendant than from any other reason. The plaintiff must rule out other possible reasons, but not exhaustively.
American case law has established the following requirements, which can be found in the Restatement of Torts (Second), Section 328 D:
- According to general life experience, the damage indicates that there was negligence;
- the provable facts exclude that the behavior of the plaintiff or a third party caused the damage; and
- the negligent breach of duty falls within the defendant's duty to the plaintiff.
The earlier case law also applied the exclusive control requirement . This meant that the plaintiff had to prove that the thing causing the damage was in principle or at least at the time of the damage under the plaintiff's exclusive control. The case law did away with this requirement, as it led to considerable difficulties of proof. Accordingly, the requirement no longer appears in the Restatement of Torts.
Consequence of the applicability of the res ipsa loquitur principle
From res ipsa loquitur it only follows that facts speak for the existence of a negligent breach of duty by the defendant. However, it has not been proven that this was definitely the case. Accordingly, in most US legal systems, res ipsa loquitur alone will not result in a judgment for the plaintiff.
If the defendant wants to exonerate himself, he has to prove that there is no generalized situation to which the rules of general life experience can be applied, but a special case that deviates from it. He does not have to prove the specific facts.
Shifting the burden of proof
In certain cases, the jurisprudence has adopted res ipsa loquitur as a reversal of the burden of proof , contrary to what has just been presented . What these cases have in common is that the defendants each assumed a certain responsibility towards the plaintiff.
An example is medical liability. However, res ipsa loquitur does not apply here unreservedly from the outset. In principle, expert evidence is required, which excludes res ipsa loquitur , since the medical layperson usually does not have sufficient medical knowledge to make an accurate assessment. Res ipsa loquitur is only permissible in cases in which the layperson can infer the existence of negligence on the basis of the facts and general life experience . Examples are: the surgeon forgets surgical instruments in the patient's body, a healthy limb is amputated instead of the sick one.
For the defendant this means that he cannot exonerate himself simply by proving a special case that deviates from the generalized one from general life experience. Here the exact facts must be presented and proven and exonerate the defendant.
literature
- Fowler V. Harper: Effect of Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (with FE Heckel). In: 22 Illinois Law Review 724, 1928 ( digitalcommons.law.yale.edu PDF).
- Erik Kraatz: The influence of experience on the factual determination of the facts. DeGruyter, 2011 ( books.google.de reading sample).