Tort Law

3. Res Ipsa Loquitur “the thing that speaks for itself”
a) WHEN DOES RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLY?
- a rule pertaining to circumstatnial evidence, from whcih an inference of neg;ce can     arise (takes you to the point of evidentiary burden)
- b/c it is based on circumstantial evidence, it cannot apply when there are multiple     tortfeasors
criteria for application of rule:
1. D must have sole (or at least effective) control over the thing causing harm
2. occurance would not normally happen w/o neg’ce (usually applies in product liabilty        cases)
3. there must be no evidence as to why or how hte harm occured

Kirk v McLaughlin COal (1968 ON CA)- furnace exploded two times shortly after being serviced, RIL held to apply b/c the D had sole control over the thermostat - noone else had serviced it

Clayton v JNZ Invt. Ltd. (1969 Ont CA)- burst pipe casued flooding. amd P assumed D would be resp for loss incurred- but RIL not applied b/c tere was no evidence as to whch party had casued hte harm- could have come from any number of parties

Tataryn v Co-Op Trust Co. (1975 Sask CA)- Cessna equipped w/ dual controls crashes kilong everyone on board, only pilot knew how to fly- deceased’s wife able to invoke RIL in absence of any evidence as to how or why the crash took place

b) THE PROCEDURAL EFFECTS OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
McHugh v Reynolds (1974 ON CA) -  demonstrates how RIL shifts evidentiary burden back and forth btwn D & P -
1. P asserts calima gianst D- neg’t in munufacture of ladder - led to accident based on              appl’n of RIL
2. D calls evidence making inference of neg;ce plausible but improbable
3. RIL is rejected and onus shifts abck to P who must then prove neg;ce of D on bop

Rule: RIL doesn’t mean that there is a presumption of neg’ce, only that a prima facie case of neg;ce has been inferred
Holmes v Board of Hospital Trustees of London 1977 ONT HC)

XIV STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND TORT LIABILITY
2 ways to use statues in tort law:
1. to create an express statutory COA
2. may create an obligation or prohibit conduct in such a way that a common law duty        will flow, giving rise to an action in neg’ce
1. EXPRESS STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION
- examples found in Competition Act, and Trespass to Property Act
-Traschler v Halton (1955 ON HC) - P is suing municipailty for failing to keep roads in good repair, pursuant to Section 453(1) of The Municipal Act - in order to find municipality liable, must show that, mun. knew about the need and hadn’t acted, OR should’ve known and didn;t act - in response its open to the municiaplity to show that reasonable system was in place, and no other system would have resulted in quicker repair

Related posts:

• Maritime Tort Laws (0)
• New Jersey Toxic Torts Attorneys (0)