What is res ipsa liquitur and what does it do?
res ipsa loquitur
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=ES3&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=res+ipsa+loquitur&spell=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur
"Res ipsa loquitur" is a Latin phrase that translates to "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine often used in negligence cases to establish a presumption of negligence.
This doctrine comes into play when the circumstances of an accident are so obvious and the defendant has exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the harm, that it can be inferred that the harm would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. In other words, it allows a plaintiff to establish a breach of duty on the part of the defendant without having to provide specific evidence of the defendant's negligent act.
To understand how this doctrine works, let's imagine a scenario: Suppose you are walking on a sidewalk when suddenly, a flower pot falls from a second-story window above and hits you on the head, causing injury. In such a case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply because the facts of the case show that flower pots do not typically fall from windows unless someone is negligent. It is obvious that someone had control over the flower pot and its fall causing the injury. Thus, the thing (the falling flower pot) speaks for itself and suggests negligence on the part of the owner of the window, creating a presumption of negligence.
However, it is important to note that res ipsa loquitur is not an automatic finding of negligence. It simply shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide an explanation or evidence showing that they were not negligent. It is still necessary for the plaintiff to establish all the other elements of a negligence claim, such as duty of care, causation, and damages.
In summary, res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine used to establish a presumption of negligence in cases where the circumstances suggest that the harm would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the harm.