Byrne v. Boadle
Citation: 2 H & C 722 (1863)
Facts
Plaintiff was walking past defendant’s shop when a barrel of flour fell from the building and struck him. The plaintiff could not identify any specific negligent act, but a barrel of flour does not ordinarily fall from a window without negligence.
Issue
May a plaintiff establish a prima facie case of negligence based on the mere fact that an accident occurred, without proof of a specific negligent act?
Holding
Yes. The accident itself speaks to negligence. A barrel of flour falling from a building window is itself evidence of negligence, without requiring the plaintiff to identify the specific act of carelessness. The burden shifts to the defendant to explain the accident.
Rule
Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself): When an accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the defendant was in exclusive control of the instrumentality, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident, the occurrence of the accident itself creates an inference of negligence. The plaintiff need not identify the specific act of negligence.
Significance
- Origin of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
- Allows plaintiffs to establish negligence circumstantially when the specific negligent act cannot be identified but the accident itself implies negligence
- The doctrine creates an inference (not a presumption) of negligence; defendant may rebut by showing due care or another explanation
- Ybarra v. Spangard extends res ipsa to multiple defendants where the patient is unconscious