Docstoc

ProofOfNegligence_ResIpsaLoquitur_Byrne_v_Boadle

Document Sample
ProofOfNegligence_ResIpsaLoquitur_Byrne_v_Boadle Powered By Docstoc
					cf5b75f8-d2bc-4dd0-9efb-a860725eefbb.doc

Page 229

Byrne v. Boadle, Court of Exchequer, 1863 Was it negligence even though P showed no evidence of negligence? Issue Reasoning
But very likely that D’s servants were engaged in removing the flour, if not, D should’ve proved otherwise – something must have caused to fall, it doesn’t fall on its own. The barrel was in custody of D who is responsible for the acts of his servants who had control of it. 1. 2. Injured P does not have to show negligence D has to show evidence inconstant with negligence P did not show any evidence of D’s negligence.

Rule
The presumption of negligence can arise form the facts of an accident.

Facts
P was walking on the street past D’s shop when a barrel of flour fell on him from a window above the shop knocking him down and seriously injuring him.

Held Procedure P argues D argues

The fact that the barrel fell is prima facie evidence of negligence. P sued for negligence. Assessor ruled that there was no evidence of negligence for the jury. Nonsuited the P reserving leave to him to move the court of Excequer to enter for him a verdict for £ 50 for damages. P obtained a rule nisi. There are many cases in which no presumption of negligence can arise.

Nisi: not final or absolute


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags: Torts, Case, Briefs
Stats:
views:12
posted:5/16/2009
language:English
pages:1