The Technicalities Behind Proving the At-Fault Party in a Car Accident
Road accidents happen all the time, and the reasons behind them can be multifaceted and hard to pinpoint. While some accidents have specific causes and are easy to find at-fault parties, it is more complex for some.
For instance, when a motorist is driving above the speed limit and causes an accident, proving the at-fault party here is quite straightforward. Another case is finding evidence of mobile phone use before an accident, which proves that a driver was probably distracted.
Above are some pretty straightforward cases, and such may be easy to conclude as the evidence is available. However, this is only sometimes the case, as in some road crashes, finding the fault and cause may be challenging.
Take, for instance, a car running off the highway into a dry pathway in good weather conditions and hitting a pedestrian. Finding the at-fault party here may take a lot of work.
Or, a pedestrian may get run over by a car while standing off the side of the road. Finding the at-fault party here may be a complicated affair. So what happens in such situations?
To see what happens in such situations, we will first look at a famous English case, Byrne vs Boadle. Have a read below:
Byrne vs Boadle
Byrne v. Boadle was a famous English case from way back in 1863. Byrne, the plaintiff, alleged that he was walking along a highway in front of a building owned by Boadle, the defendant.
As he was walking, he suddenly lost consciousness. Witnesses testified that a barrel of flour that was either being lowered from one of the windows or dropped struck him and caused a great deal of injury in the process. Consequently, he brought a suit against Boadle for negligence.
Byrne did not see the barrel of flour being lowered from the windows, and he could not provide any evidence to prove that the flour was from the building Boadle owned.
Still, this did not stop the case from advancing. In fact, the court deemed that the barrel of flour most certainly came from Beadle’s building. On top of that, barrels of flour do not ordinarily fall from such buildings unless the workers are negligent.
In the same line, the workers had exclusive control of the barrel that fell out of the window. Finally, none of the plaintiff’s actions pointed to him having control over the incident.
This case is widely regarded as the birth of the Res ipsa loquitur principle. The Latin principle translates to ‘the thing speaks for itself.’ In the legal sphere, it applies when factors in a specific case allow the court to assume that negligence has occurred.
In a typical negligence case, it is the plaintiff’s duty to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, which they neglected. However, under Res Ipsa loquitur, the court presumes negligence, which means the plaintiff may not have to prove it.
Res Ipsa Loquitur and Road Accidents
So, how exactly does Res Ipsa loquitur apply to road accidents? If the specific factors behind an accident point to obvious negligence on the defendant’s part, the court may apply this principle.
Maryland courts have, for example, been applying it in rear-end collisions, although not in its literal Latin form. If a car in Maryland is lawfully stopped at an intersection, waiting for traffic to clear, and gets rear-ended, then the court automatically presumes negligence.
In such cases, the defendant is already deemed negligent, and they must prove a non-negligent reason for rear-ending another vehicle.
Also Read: How to Set Up Your Own Aeroponic Growing System at Home
Conclusion
The res ipsa loquitur principle is applied when negligence is evident in an accident, even without evidence. It is a Latin phrase meaning ‘the thing speaks for itself.’
“If you are ever involved in an accident where the at-fault party is not clear, you should contact a personal injury lawyer to help file a lawsuit” says attorney Felix Gonzalez of Felix Gonzalez Accident and Injury Law Firm.
