判决理由
Where an accident occurs that would not ordinarily happen without negligence, and the instrumentality causing the accident was under the defendant's control, the court may infer negligence (res ipsa loquitur). The burden then shifts to the defendant to provide a reasonable explanation.
事实
The plaintiff, a customs officer, was passing the defendants' warehouse when six bags of sugar fell on him from a crane above. He could not prove exactly how the accident happened.
判决摘要
Erle CJ held that in the absence of explanation by the defendants, the accident was such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if proper care is used. The maxim res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') was applicable, raising a presumption of negligence.
关键引述
"There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."
— Erle CJ
后续处理
Origin of res ipsa loquitur in English law. Clarified by the House of Lords in Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971].