Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

A road accident injures Meera when a lorry, left unattended on a slope with its brakes not applied, rolls down and hits her. She cannot show exactly how the driver was careless, but the lorry was under the defendant's sole control. Which doctrine may help her case?

Res ipsa loquitur, meaning the thing speaks for itself, helps Meera. The lorry was in the defendant's sole control and such an accident ordinarily does not happen without negligence, so the court may infer carelessness and the defendant must explain how it occurred.

  1. ARes ipsa loquitur, shifting to the defendant the burden of explaining the accidentCorrect
  2. BVolenti non fit injuria, which defeats her claim
  3. CDamnum sine injuria, which means no legal wrong occurred
  4. DInevitable accident, which conclusively proves absence of fault

Explanation

Res ipsa loquitur applies where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control and the accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence; the defendant must then explain. Volenti is a defence needing consent, which is absent. Damnum sine injuria and inevitable accident do not fit these facts.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Law of Torts questions