Byrne v. Boadle – Case Brief
Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (Exch. 1863).
Facts: Byrne (P) was struck by a barrel falling from a window as he walked past Boadle’s flour shop and sustained serious injuries. A witness testified that he saw the barrel fall from Boadle’s window but had not seen the cause. Byrne did not present any other evidence of negligence by Boadle or his employees.
D moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that P had presented no evidence of negligence. The court granted D’s motion and P obtained a rule nisi. The Court of Exchequer found in favor of P and reversed. D appealed.
Issue: Can liability for negligence lie solely on account of the type of accident that occurred, without direct evidence of defendant’s negligence?
Holding and Rule: Yes. Liability for negligence can lie solely on account of the type of accident that occurred, without direct evidence of defendant’s negligence.
Pollock: A presumption of negligence can arise from an accident. A party need not present direct evidence of negligence when the mere manner and facts of the accident show that it could not have happened without negligence on someone’s part.
A barrel could not roll out of a warehouse window without negligence. This is an example of a case in which res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”). It is evident that the barrel was in the custody of D and its falling is prima facie evidence of negligence. A plaintiff who is injured in a such a fashion should not be required to show that the barrel could not fall without negligence. A rebuttable presumption is created that D was negligent, and D has the burden to prove that he was not negligent.
Channel: D had a duty to ensure that those passing by his shop are not injured by objects under his control. In this case there was a scintilla of evidence with respect to negligence. D failed to show that he was not negligent and P is entitled to the verdict.
Disposition: Affirmed; Judgment for P.
Notes: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied when there is direct evidence of the cause of the injury and facts and circumstances surrounding it.
To apply res ipsa loquitur, the following elements must be present:
1) The accident must be of a type that normally would not occur in the absence of negligence.
2) There was no contribution to the plaintiff’s injuries by the plaintiff or any third party.
3) The source of the negligence falls within the scope of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; this usually (but not necessarily) arises where the instrument causing the injury was within the exclusive control of the defendant, or where there is an inability to identity the specific source of harm. Frequently it arises where the source of negligence lies within a group of people who are unwilling or unable to divulge the actual source.
The plaintiff must still prove all of the other elements to prove D’s liability (i.e. proximate cause etc.)
See also City of Louisville v. Humphrey; and Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Ass’n.