Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Citation. Court of Exchequer, 1863. 2 H. & C. 722. 159 Eng. Rep. 299.
The plaintiff, Mr. Byrne, was walking along the street when a barrel of flour fell on his head and knocked him out, resulting in injury. The defendant(Mr. Boadle) is the owner of this flour shop which the barrel of flour fell from its window. The plaintiff sues for damages based on negligence.
When a person is harmed by an unknown source that is typically the result of negligence, that is enough to substantiate a prima facie case of negligence.
The plaintiff, Mr. Byrne, was walking along the street when a barrel of flour fell on his head and knocked him out, resulting in injury. The defendant(Mr. Boadle) is the owner of this flour shop which the barrel of flour fell from its window. While at trial, the plaintiff had two witnesses attest to seeing the barrel fall from the window and struck the plaintiff. Both witnesses could not say how but were sure it was the defendant’s shop. The final witness was a surgeon who testified to the plaintiff’s injuries. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding no proof of negligence—the plaintiff appeals.
Whether an accident is enough to make a prima facie case of negligence?
Yes, an accident is enough to make a prima facie case of negligence.
Yes, an accident is enough to make a prima facie case of negligence. It is too broad to say that an accident cannot constitute the presumption of negligence. In this instance, a barrel fell from a window. That action was caused by someone or the lack of care from someone. It is not reasonable to place the injury of this negligence and the duty to prove the negligent behavior on the plaintiff. The court states that the barrel was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the premises and who is responsible for the barrel and its servants who control it. Therefore, the court rules in favor of the plaintiff and determines that an accident is enough to establish a prima facie case of negligence for the defendant. The burden to prove that this act was not negligent rests on the defendant.