- (1.) Salmond on Law of Torts, 15th Edn. at page 306 wrote "The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident would have happened without the negligence of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused." In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 28 at page 77, this position is further explained as under "An exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs whenever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant's negligence, or, where the event charged as negligence 'tells its own story' of negligence on part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous."
(2.) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pushpabhai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), had occasion to examine the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur', It was propounded that: "...where the maxim is applicable the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care." Their Lordships further observed that: "...the normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of 'resipsa loquitur'. The general purport of the words 'res ipsa loquitur' is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence."
(3.) Applying the principle as indicated hereinabove, I proceed to examine whether the requirements are satisfied in the instant case.;