��˾����ҹ����

View the related checklists about Res ipsa loquitur

Glossary—Latin legal terms

Glossary—Latin legal terms Despite attempts in recent years to simplify the language used in legal cases, there are still a number of Latin phrases commonly used in personal injury claims. The following Latin phrases are listed in alphabetical order: Latin term Definition Meaning Acta iure imperii Legal acts of public nature Liability of the state for actions or omissions in the exercise of state authority Bona Fide In good faith A Bona Fide agreement is one entered into without intent to deceive Caveat Take care/caution A legal notice to the court to prevent another party taking action without informing the person who gave the notice Compos Mentis Of sound mind Legally fit to conduct the claim De Facto In fact As a matter of fact Ex Gratia As a matter of favour An ex gratia payment is made without any legal or contractual obligation to do so Ex Parte By a party An ex parte application is made to the court by one party in the absence or without...

View the related practice notes about Res ipsa loquitur

Proving negligence in road traffic claims

This Practice Note considers the common types of evidence that may be relied on to determine liability in a road traffic accident claim including a breach of the Highway Code and statutory duties, relevant motoring convictions, police records and accident reconstruction expert evidence. It also looks at the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Road traffic accident claims are predominantly brought in negligence. If a road user has breached the Highway Code this can be relied on as tending to establish liability in civil proceedings. In addition, while a road traffic criminal conviction is not in itself proof of negligence, the conviction shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove liability in the civil action.NOTE: Major changes to the Highway Code came into force on 29 January 2022. The concept of a 'hierarchy of road users' was introduced to give vulnerable road users a greater degree of clarity over who has right of way at junctions. For further details, see News Analysis: A Highway Code for the future—visionary changes...

Burden of proof in personal injury claims

Balance of probabilitiesThe claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant has been negligent or has breached their statutory duties. Proof on the balance of probabilities means proof that it is more likely than not. If the claimant’s evidence is equally consistent with the presence or absence of negligence or breach of the duty then the claim will fail.If the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising out of the alleged negligent act, this will create a rebuttable presumption that they committed that offence. In these circumstances the burden of proof is reversed. It is then for the defendant to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, there was no negligence. Convictions such as this arise with particular frequency in relation to road traffic accidents. See: Proving negligence—Relevant motoring convictions.Inference of carelessnessThe court is able to draw reasonable inferences from the known facts. This is achieved by assessing the evidence in order to determine whether it amounts to evidence of negligence against the defendant.Important points to...

View the related precedents about Res ipsa loquitur

Claim against an uninsured driver joining the Motor Insurance Bureau as second defendant

Claim against an uninsured driver joining the Motor Insurance Bureau as second defendant IN THE [INSERT NAME OF COURT] Claim no.                   Parties AB        Claimant and (1) C D First Defendant (2) MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU (acting through its agent X Y INSURANCE PLC)        Second Defendants ______________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ______________________________ 1 At all material times the First Defendant was the driver of a vehicle [description], [registration] (“the vehicle”), and the Claimant was a passenger therein. 2 The Second Defendant (hereinafter “MIB”) is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies’ Acts. Pursuant to an Agreement with the Secretary of State dated 3 July 2015 (hereinafter “the Agreement”), MIB provides compensation in certain circumstances to persons suffering injury or damage as a result of the negligence of the uninsured motorist. 3 The Claimant has used all reasonable endeavours to ascertain the identity and liability of an insurer for the First Defendant and, at the time of commencement of these proceedings, believes that the First Defendant...

Letter of claim—product liability claim against drinks manufacturer by third party

Letter of claim—product liability claim against drinks manufacturer by third party [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [RELEVANT NAME] [NAME OF DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR, IF KNOWN] [ADDRESS LINE 1] [ADDRESS LINE 2] [POSTCODE] [DATE] Dear [insert organisation name] [PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT’S NAME] AND [PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT’S NAME] LETTER OF CLAIM Introduction We write further to our letter dated [insert date of prior correspondence sent, if any]. [As you know, we OR We] are instructed by [insert client’s full name], whose address is [insert full address]. This is our client’s letter of claim sent in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims (the ‘Protocol’) set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, a copy of which is enclosed for your ease of reference. We draw your attention to the final section of this letter, which sets out the deadline by which your response is required, and the consequences of failing to respond properly within that time. We enclose a copy of this letter of claim...

View the related q&as about Res ipsa loquitur

A sub-contractor carrying out piling works damaged underground utilities at the site. The main contractor thought it had located the utilities before starting the works, but had not. The employer commenced proceedings against the contractor, but has since learned of the sub-contractor’s involvement. Should the employer continue its claim against the contractor? Further, do you have any guidance on the principle res ipsa loquitur?

A sub-contractor carrying out piling works damaged underground utilities at the site. The main contractor thought it had located the utilities before starting the works, but had not. The employer commenced proceedings against the contractor, but has since learned of the sub-contractor’s involvement. Should the employer continue its claim against the contractor? Further, do you have any guidance on the principle res ipsa loquitur? For the purposes of this Q&A it is assumed that: • the employer owns, or has a proprietary interest in, the utilities that were damaged • the employer’s claim is for loss resulting from the physical damage to the utilities • the sub-contractor has not provided the employer with a collateral warranty, or entered into any contract with the employer Liability for the damage Two related issues arise from the potential claims against the contractor and/or sub-contractor. The first concerns what course of action the employer may adopt. The second concerns the matter of substantive liability for the damage—ie which party is...

In tort claims, what is the burden of proof and what is the test of causation? Is the burden satisfied where damage is very unlikely to have been caused by the defendant’s actions, but it is a less unlikely cause of the damage than defendant’s alternative suggested cause?

In tort claims, what is the burden of proof and what is the test of causation? Is the burden satisfied where damage is very unlikely to have been caused by the defendant’s actions, but it is a less unlikely cause of the damage than defendant’s alternative suggested cause? Burden of proof The claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant has been negligent or has breached their statutory duties. Proof on the balance of probabilities means proof that it is more likely than not. If the claimant’s evidence is equally consistent with the presence or absence of negligence or breach of the duty then the claim will fail. If the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising out of the alleged negligent act, this will create a rebuttable presumption that they committed that offence. In these circumstances, the burden of proof is reversed. It is then for the defendant to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, there was no negligence. The court is...

View the related News about Res ipsa loquitur

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—23 June 2022

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a news analysis on a gas explosion and the engagement of res ipsa loquitur. We also have an analysis on actionable damage in a mesothelioma case. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other key cases and news and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Explosions and res ipsa loquitur—when does it apply? (Shepherd v Northern Gas Networks Ltd)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case concerned a gas explosion in Sunderland in 2017, which destroyed two residential properties and caused significant personal injury. The claimant was, the court observed, ‘truly fortunate to survive this horrific incident’. It was agreed between the parties that the direct cause was corrosion damage to the one-inch diameter steel service pipe situated below the soil surface. The service pipe ran from the iron mains pipe to the internal installations. This allowed gas to escape and to accumulate within the property, eventually being ignited by the unwitting claimant. Written by Harry Lambert at Crown Office Chambers.