Byrne
v. Boadle
Court
of Exchequer, 1863.
2
H. & C. 722, 159 Eng.Rep. 299.
Prosser,
pp. 229-231
Facts: Byrne was walking past
Boadle’s shop and suddenly a barrel of flour hit him in the head. Byrne sued for negligence. He gets nonsuited (dismissed) for failing to
make a prima facie case for negligence, but the court says that if the Court of
Exchequer will buy the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff can get £50.
Issue: Can the defendant be found
negligent without any other evidence?
Rule: NEW RULE!!! RES IPSA LOQUITUR! The thing speaks for itself.
You
can infer that the defendant was negligent if:
1. The thing that
happened usually doesn’t happen in the absence of someone’s negligence.
2. Other possible
causes (like contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff or a third
party) are ruled out by the evidence.
3. The defendant
violated a duty to the plaintiff.[1]
Analysis: Pollock basically says:
“Well, what the hell else could have happened?
Barrels of flour don’t just fall out of the sky! Somebody did something stupid, and someone
got hurt! What more do you need???”
Conclusion: I think the plaintiff got
his quid.
Notes
and Questions
1. The only thing
that the plaintiff has offered as evidence is the sheer fact that a barrel of
flour fell out of the window. The rule
is that the plaintiff doesn’t need to eliminate all other possibilities, but
rather the plaintiff only needs to show that it was more likely than not that
the defendant was the one responsible.
If the defendant was a deliverer of flour, it might be easier to argue
that “it wasn’t me, it was him!”
2. Another book
said that “Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicet?” is a phrase
Prosser made up that means “The thing speaks for itself, but what the hell is
it saying???” I think what Pollock means
is that this was such a crazy, weird thing to happen that the sheer fact that
it happened, without more, shows that somebody was negligent.
3. I don’t know
why we should use it, except as a handy way to remember cases similar to one
where we want to say res ipsa loquitur.
4. The two
requirements in order to use res ipsa loquitur are (1) the thing that caused
the harm was under the control of the defendant, and (2) the thing that
happened can basically never happen unless someone screwed up (i.e. was
negligent). In some jurisdictions,
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is considered (this is
true in the Restatement).
5. There was a
different rule related to strict duties on the part of common carriers.
6. Unfortunately
people started calling this res ipsa loquitur too.
7. Okay!