16 November 2017
The case of PT Civil Engineering v Davies (2017) EWHC 1651 (QB) provides an interesting example of the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur i.e. that the accident itself is evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
The claimant was a self-employed ground worker. He was travelling in a van owned by the defendants, together with two passengers. The vehicle was travelling along the A470 when a fire broke out within it. The injured claimant brought an action for damages alleging that the accident was caused by the defendants’ negligence in that they had failed to maintain the vehicle. It was claimed that prior to the incident the vehicle had a history of reported faults.
The claimant and the two passengers gave evidence that they noticed a sweet smell and then saw a flame from underneath a plastic area immediately in front of the driver. However, the expert witnesses instructed for each side agreed that the location of the seat of the fire was the back of the driver’s seat cushion and the seat back. There was no fire damage in the driver’s foot well. The witness evidence was inconsistent with the physical evidence, as interpreted by the expert witnesses, who were unable to find a link between any of the reported faults of the vehicle and the cause of the fire.
Notwithstanding the fact that the exact cause of the fire was unknown, the Judge at first instance found in favour of the claimant, applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. He drew an inference that the fire would not have occurred without the defendants’ negligence in failing to adequately maintain the vehicle.
This decision was overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge was not entitled to draw such an inference. The evidence showed that the previous defects in the vehicle were not the cause of the fire. There was no evidence that a defect in the vehicle could have caused the fire. It could not therefore be said that the circumstances were such that they pointed to the negligence of the defendants.
The Court of Appeal’s view was that for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, there needed to be (1) an unexplained occurrence (2) which would not have happened in the ordinary course of events without negligence and (3) the circumstances are such that they point to the defendant having caused the occurrence by his negligence.
The burden of proof lay upon the claimant to show that the defendants had failed to take reasonable care and that their failure to do so caused the accident. Whilst the defendants had not been able to prove a negative that they were not negligent, they were able to show that the fact of the accident itself was not enough to infer that the accident was caused by their negligence.
The case serves as a useful reminder of the requirements of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, and its limits given that the defendant’s negligence was clearly not the only reasonable explanation for the cause of the fire.
Contact:
Catherine Currie, Partner & Solicitor Advocate, E: ccr@bto.co.uk / T:0141 221 8012