88:
of the premises of a dealer in flour, and there falls down upon him a barrel of flour. I think it apparent that the barrel was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the premises, and who is responsible for the acts of his servants who had the control of it; and in my opinion the fact of its falling is
87:
evidence of negligence. A barrel could not roll out of a warehouse without some negligence, and to say that a plaintiff who is injured by it must call witnesses from the warehouse to prove negligence seems to me preposterous. The present case upon the evidence comes to this, a man is passing in front
80:
I think it would be wrong to lay down as a rule that in no case can a presumption of negligence arise from the fact of an accident. Suppose in this case the barrel had rolled out of the warehouse and fallen on the plaintiff how could he possibly ascertain from what cause it occurred? It is the duty
67:
Initially, in the lower court the case was dismissed through a directed verdict because the plaintiff could provide no evidence. Subsequently the appellate court concluded that under the conditions, the fact of the accident itself provided sufficient
46:
and hit the plaintiff on his shoulder. Though there were two witnesses who saw the injury, there were no witnesses as to how the barrel fell out and hit the plaintiff. Under these conditions, the plaintiff was not required to provide
92:
evidence of negligence, and the plaintiff who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could not fall without negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with negligence it is for the defendant to prove
81:
of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to take care that they do not roll out, and I think that such a case would, beyond all doubt, afford
169:
154:
120:
52:
164:
159:
69:
116:
30:
25:
139:
48:
148:
73:
56:
83:
43:
24:(2 Hurl. & Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863) is an
51:
as to whether the person responsible for the barrel had
113:
Can I sue? : an introduction to
Canadian tort law
78:
8:
42:A barrel of flour fell from a second-story
72:to establish the breach of a duty of care.
28:case that first applied the doctrine of
103:
7:
115:. Toronto: Pitman Pub. p. 82.
14:
34:(“the thing speaks for itself”).
1:
186:
111:Spetz, Steven N. (1974).
170:Exchequer of Pleas cases
70:circumstantial evidence
95:
155:English tort case law
76:said the following.
165:1863 in British law
16:English legal case
31:res ipsa loquitur
177:
160:1863 in case law
127:
126:
108:
26:English tort law
185:
184:
180:
179:
178:
176:
175:
174:
145:
144:
136:
131:
130:
123:
110:
109:
105:
100:
65:
49:direct evidence
40:
17:
12:
11:
5:
183:
181:
173:
172:
167:
162:
157:
147:
146:
143:
142:
135:
134:External links
132:
129:
128:
121:
102:
101:
99:
96:
64:
61:
39:
36:
21:Byrne v Boadle
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
182:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
153:
152:
150:
141:
138:
137:
133:
124:
118:
114:
107:
104:
97:
94:
91:
86:
85:
77:
75:
74:Baron Pollock
71:
62:
60:
58:
54:
50:
45:
37:
35:
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
140:Text of case
112:
106:
90:prima facie
89:
82:
79:
66:
57:duty of care
41:
29:
20:
19:
18:
84:prima facie
149:Categories
122:0273041894
63:Judgment
53:breached
119:
98:Notes
93:them.
38:Facts
117:ISBN
55:his
44:loft
151::
59:.
125:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.