ABSTRACT
Of the numerous Latin phrases that have crept into law, the maxim res ipsa loquitur
is perhaps the best known. Yet, this innocuous phrase, which means
nothing more than "the thing speaks for itself," has been the source of
much confusion and disagreement. This divergence of opinion is centred
around the proper application and the procedural effect of the rules
which have been promulgated by the courts in giving effect to and in
applying this phrase. This study therefore has the objective of
critiquing the application of the doctrine in Nigeria. In doing this, it
examines instances of its use and also conducts a comparative analysis
with the Jurisdictions of England and the United States of America,
which courts are seen as well developed and thought leaders in this
direction.
The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur
is simple, whereas in a case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove by
evidence, regarding the defendant’s conducts, that the defendant was
negligent, but when the plaintiff does not know how and why the accident
happened, in such a case the plaintiff can invoke the assistant of the
rule of evidence known by the latin maxim Res ipsa loquitur (“the event speaks for itself”), thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, to prove that they were not negligent.
Since its inception, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has produced conflict, confusion, and doubt. In Nigeria, the requirement under which the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur”
becomes operative includes firstly, proof of the happening of an
unexplained occurrence, secondly, the occurrence must be one which would
not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence
on the part of somebody other than the plaintiff, and lastly, the
circumstances must point to the negligence in question being that of the
defendant rather than that of any other person.
Findings revealed that compared to the
other two legal systems used as basis, there is legal clarity with
regard to the nature, requirements for and especially the effect of the
application of the doctrine on the onus of proof in Nigeria. The
approach followed by the courts is that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
is a permissible factual inference which the court is at liberty but
not compelled to make and which does not affect the onus of proof, which
can either be with the plaintiff or the defendant. Normally the onus
of proof of the negligence alleged at the onset is on the plaintiff, but
where this doctrine is applicable, after evidence of how the accident
occurred is given by the plaintiff, the onus shifts on the defendant to
offer an explanation as to why the accident happened. Such explanation
would seek to show that the defendant is not at fault.
It is also quite clear that in Nigeria,
the plaintiff can only rely on the doctrine if the cause of the accident
remains unknown, whereas in America, the doctrine can still hold if the
plaintiff has partial knowledge of the cause. On rebuttal by the
defendant, the nature of the explanation is such that although it should
conform to certain rather stringent principles it is not expected of
the defendant to prove his blamelessness on a balance of probabilities.
This implies that if, after all the evidence is in, the probabilities
are still equal, the defendant should prevail.
Conclusively, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur is basically an application of principles of circumstantial
evidence. The traditional elements that must be shown by a plaintiff who
seeks to invoke the doctrine are merely factors by which the defendant
may be so closely connected with the fact of plaintiff's injury as to
make the inference that his negligence caused the injury more plausible
than any other.