Foreign matter left inside after surgery

  • In Nihal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a case of medical negligence.
  • Doctors accidentally left surgical scissors inside a patient’s body during an operation, and the patient later died.
  • The scissors were recovered from the ashes after cremation, providing indisputable evidence of negligence.
  • The court held that the medical team committed a gross breach of duty of care and awarded ₹1,20,000 as compensation to the deceased’s dependents.

Mrs. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd.

  • In Mrs. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a case of medical negligence.
  • During surgery to remove the plaintiff’s uterus, the surgeon accidentally left an abdominal pack inside her body, requiring a second operation.
  • The court held that leaving a foreign object inside a patient’s body is an obvious breach of the duty of care that speaks for itself.
  • Accordingly, both the surgeon and the hospital were held jointly liable for actionable negligence and directed to pay ₹5,80,000 as compensation.

A.H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra

  • In A.H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a case of fatal medical negligence.
  • During a sterilization operation, the doctor accidentally left a surgical mop inside the patient’s abdomen, causing peritonitis and her death.
  • The court held that leaving surgical material inside a patient is an obvious breach of duty, raising a presumption of negligence.
  • Under the principle of vicarious liability, the State was held liable for the negligent acts of its hospital staff.

Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal and Others

  • In Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of West Bengal and Others, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a stampede case.
  • A 16-year-old boy was trampled and seriously injured while standing in a ticket queue for a cricket Test match.
  • The court held that the Cricket Association of Bengal was negligent for failing to seek adequate police security, while the State Government breached its duty by failing to provide proper crowd management and essential safety measures.
  • As the stampede itself indicated a failure of duty of care, both were held jointly liable for negligence.

State of M.P. v. Asha Devi

  • In State of M.P. v. Asha Devi, the court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur (presumption of negligence) in a road accident case.
  • A police vehicle carrying 30–32 constables crashed into a culvert, causing the death of 5 officers.
  • Although travelling at 30 km/h, the speed was excessive for the narrow, zigzag road and single-vehicle culverts.
  • The court also found actionable negligence because 4–5 passengers were crowded into the driver’s cabin, obstructing safe driving and gear shifting.
  • These circumstances raised a presumption of negligence against the driver and the State.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan

  • In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a motor vehicle accident case.
  • Two buses passed so closely that two passengers had their left hands severed below the shoulder.
  • The court held that such an accident itself raised a presumption of negligence against both drivers.
  • As the transport corporation and drivers failed to rebut this presumption or explain the accident, they were held liable for actionable negligence.

Gangaram v. Kamlabai

  • In Gangaram v. Kamlabai, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a fatal motor vehicle accident.
  • A taxi’s front tyre burst, causing the vehicle to leave the road, somersault, and kill two passengers.
  • The 20-foot drag marks on the Kutcha road showed excessive speed, while the tyre burst indicated that the tyre was old and unroadworthy.
  • The court held that these circumstances raised a presumption of negligence, and as the defendants failed to rebut it, they were held liable for actionable negligence.

Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

  • In Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a road traffic accident.
  • A rickshaw travelling on the correct side of the road was hit by a fast-moving bus driven on the wrong side, which then crashed into an electric pole.
  • The court held that driving at high speed on the wrong side raised a clear presumption of negligence.
  • Applying the principle of vicarious liability, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was held liable for the negligent acts of its driver.

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Manju Bhushan

  • In Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Manju Bhushan, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a fatal rear-end collision.
  • A government bus struck a cycle rickshaw from behind with such force that the victim was thrown over 10 feet and died.
  • The court held that such a collision raised a presumption of rash and negligent driving.
  • Accordingly, the driver’s actionable negligence was established, and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was held vicariously liable.

Mahabir Prasad Goel v. Guru Saran Singh

  • In Mahabir Prasad Goel v. Guru Saran Singh, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a rear-end collision.
  • A truck crashed into a rickshaw from behind, damaging its front and right wheels and injuring its occupants.
  • The court held that such a collision raised a presumption of rash and negligent driving, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
  • As the defendant failed to rebut this presumption, he was held liable for actionable negligence.

Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan

  • In Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a case involving an unroadworthy vehicle.
  • A State-owned truck caught fire after travelling only 4 miles, causing an occupant to jump out and suffer fatal injuries.
  • The evidence showed that the truck had serious mechanical defects, as its radiator had overheated repeatedly the previous day.
  • The court held that a roadworthy vehicle does not ordinarily catch fire, raising a presumption of actionable negligence.
  • As the defendants failed to rebut this presumption, they were held vicariously liable for the death.

Kannu Rowther v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

  • In Kannu Rowther v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a pedestrian accident.
  • While reversing a bus at a bus stand, the driver knocked down a person standing behind the vehicle.
  • The court held that reversing a bus over a stationary pedestrian raised a presumption of negligent operation.
  • As the driver and conductor failed to explain how the accident occurred, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was held vicariously liable for actionable negligence.

Subhash Chander v. Ram Singh

  • In Subhash Chander v. Ram Singh, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a pedestrian accident.
  • On 10 June 1962, a 7-year-old child walking about one foot from the pavement was struck from behind by a State-owned bus.
  • The court held that hitting a pedestrian walking safely near the pavement raised a presumption of negligent driving, shifting the burden of proof to the driver.
  • As the respondent failed to rebut this presumption, he was held liable for the child’s injuries.

S.K. Devi v. Uttam Bhoi

  • In S.K. Devi v. Uttam Bhoi, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a pedestrian accident involving a minor.
  • A truck travelling through a residential locality at about 2:30 p.m. struck a 7–8-year-old boy, causing severe injuries, including deep thigh lacerations and a fractured right femur.
  • The court held that driving in a populated area during daytime required a higher duty of care.
  • Considering the place, time, age of the child, and severity of the injuries, a presumption of negligence arose.
  • As the driver failed to rebut this presumption, he was held liable for actionable negligence.

G. Satpathy v. Brundoban Mishra

  • In G. Satpathy v. Brundoban Mishra, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where a vehicle left the road, struck a person resting on a cot outside his house, hit a neighbouring verandah, and travelled further before stopping.
  • The court held that a vehicle under proper control does not ordinarily leave the road and damage off-road property.
  • These circumstances raised a prima facie presumption of driver negligence.
  • As no satisfactory explanation was given, the driver was held liable for actionable negligence.

Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co.

  • In Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a fatal motor vehicle accident.
  • A company manager drove a company car to the extreme right of a 15-foot-wide road and crashed into a tree, killing a co-employee.
  • The impact uprooted the tree and severely damaged the car.
  • The Court held that such an accident would not ordinarily occur if reasonable care had been exercised.
  • As the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of negligence, the respondent company was held vicariously liable for the death.

Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami

  • In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami, the Supreme Court applied the maxim res ipsa loquitur to determine liability in a fatal vehicular crash.
  • An appellant-owned bus went off the road, injuring several passengers and killing one.
  • The bus uprooted a boundary stone, struck a tree with enough force to peel off its bark, and traveled further, establishing clear evidence of excessive speed.
  • These circumstances raised a presumption of negligence against the driver.
  • The Court rejected the mechanical failure defense and held the bus company vicariously liable for actionable negligence.

Madhya Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar

  • In Madhya Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to determine vicarious liability in a high-speed bus accident.
  • An appellant-owned bus, traveling at 50 mph on a clear road, veered off, uprooted a tree, struck a second tree, and overturned, causing multiple passenger deaths and severe injuries.
  • As there were no adverse weather or road conditions, the physical facts clearly indicated rash and negligent driving.
  • Under res ipsa loquitur, these circumstances created a legal presumption of negligence against the driver.
  • The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was held liable for actionable negligence.

Narasappa v. Kamalamma

  • In Narasappa v. Kamalamma, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to assign joint liability for a fatal workplace accident.
  • A contractor, working under the State Electricity Board, was constructing a 60-foot reinforced cement concrete (RCC) beam supported by two stone pillars.
  • While workers were laying the final 15-foot section, the beam collapsed, bringing down a support pillar and killing three workmen.
  • The court found that the contractor had execution responsibility while the Board exercised supervisory control.
  • As such a structure does not ordinarily collapse without negligence, the incident spoke for itself, allowing the court to infer negligence and hold both the contractor and the Board liable.

Automobiles Transport v. Dewalal

  • In Automobiles Transport v. Dewalal, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to determine liability for a fatal accident caused by the driver’s poor judgment.
  • When a fallen tree blocked the road, other vehicles safely passed through the spacious right side, but the appellant’s bus attempted the narrow left side, collided with a wall, overturned, and killed a passenger.
  • The court rejected the defence of following the keep-left rule, holding that such rules apply only when the road is unobstructed.
  • By ignoring the safer route, the driver created a presumption of negligence, rendering the defendants liable for actionable negligence.

Byrne v. Boadle

  • In the landmark case Byrne v. Boadle, the court established the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”).
  • The plaintiff was struck by a barrel of flour that fell from the defendant’s warehouse window while walking on a public street.
  • Chief Baron Pollock held that the accident itself was prima facie evidence of negligence, as flour barrels do not ordinarily fall without a lack of care.
  • The incident created a legal presumption of negligence, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
  • The doctrine applies where the event itself points to negligence, such as a falling brick, a stone in a bakery bun, a snapped live wire, or a wheel flange flying into a bystander.

Maximum not applicable if different inferences possible

  • The legal maxim res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) is subject to strict limits and does not apply where different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts.
  • It operates only when the sole reasonable conclusion is that the accident could not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence.
  • If multiple plausible explanations exist—such as an act of nature, third-party fault, or a sudden mechanical breakdown—no presumption of negligence arises.
  • In such cases, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove specific acts of negligence rather than relying on circumstantial inference.

Sk. Allah Bakhas and others v. Dhirendra Nath Panda and another

  • In Sk. Allah Bakhas and others v. Dhirendra Nath Panda and another, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to determine liability in a level-crossing collision.
  • An auto-rickshaw driver attempted to cross an unmanned railway crossing while a train was approaching, causing the train to strike and drag the vehicle, injuring its occupants.
  • The court held that attempting to cross in front of a fast-approaching train led to a legal presumption of negligence, as there was no other reasonable explanation for the driver’s reckless conduct.

Wakelin v. London and South Western Railway Co.

  • In Wakelin v. London and South Western Railway Co., the court held that a legal presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur cannot arise where an accident is capable of two reasonable explanations.
  • A man was struck by a train near a railway crossing at night, although the driver failed to sound the warning whistle.
  • Lord Halsbury held that the facts did not establish whether the death resulted from the absence of a whistle or the man’s own reckless conduct.
  • As both explanations were equally plausible, the doctrine did not apply, and the burden remained on the plaintiff to prove direct causation.

R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sagar Bai

  • In R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sagar Bai, the court held that res ipsa loquitur does not apply where an accident may have resulted from a mechanical defect rather than driver negligence.
  • The accident involved a state transport bus, but there was no apparent evidence of actionable negligence by the driver.
  • As a sudden mechanical failure provided an alternative explanation, the incident did not “speak for itself”, and the Corporation could be held liable only upon specific proof of negligence.

K. Sobha v. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan

  • In K. Sobha v. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan, the court held that res ipsa loquitur does not automatically apply to an unexpected medical complication.
  • The plaintiff developed a severe infection after a routine fallopian tube insufflation procedure, leading to the removal of her reproductive system.
  • As there was no evidence that the gynaecologist acted carelessly and the exact cause of the infection remained unknown, the court ruled that the infection alone did not justify an inference of negligence.
  • Accordingly, the doctrine was held inapplicable without specific proof of breach of duty.

Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka

  • In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, the court held that res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked where the facts do not clearly establish negligence.

  • A bus driver traveling on a narrow 12-foot road swerved sharply to avoid a 4-year-old child who suddenly ran across the road, but the bus struck the child, causing death.

  • The court ruled that the restricted roadway, sudden emergency, and evasive maneuver pointed to an error of judgment rather than actionable negligence.

  • As alternative explanations existed, the doctrine was held inapplicable, and the driver was found not liable.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Scroll to Top