Photo from Pexels | Dominika Kwiatkowska
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is devoid of probative value. This is because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a rule on negligence, whether the evidence is subjected to cross-examination or not. It is a rule that can stand on its own independently of the character of the evidence presented as hearsay.
Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as the “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means that “where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.”
It is simply “a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience, or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.
As such, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a presumption of negligence based on the occurrence of the incident in itself. In cases involving vehicular accidents, it is sufficient that the accident itself be established, and once established through the admission of evidence, whether hearsay or not, the rule on res ipsa loquitur already starts to apply.
In the case of hearsay evidence seeking to prove negligence, which is not objected to, as in the instant case, the same becomes admissible in evidence because of the waiver by the other party as to its admissibility. With respect to its probative value, unlike other hearsay evidence, where the truth could not still be determined by the court despite its admissibility because of the issue of reliability of the source of the information and the absence of opportunity on the part of the court to examine the truth of such hearsay evidence; hearsay evidence that seek to prove negligence can stand on their own despite their character as hearsay. This is because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a rule on negligence, which pinpoints the person guilty of negligence based on a given set of facts. It springs from common knowledge by which liability can already be determined from the occurrence of the mishap or accident. As such, it fills in the gap that usually accompanies the appreciation of the probative value of a hearsay evidence that is not objected to. Once negligence is established, there is no need for the court to make further examination simply because the presumption of negligence is already provided by the rule of res ipsa loquitur, as the event, which is a vehicular accident in this case, already speaks for itself.
Thus, while as a general rule, hearsay evidence does not have probative value whether it be objected to or not, an exception to this is a hearsay evidence that seeks to prove negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which carries probative weight when not objected to.
Related Articles:
- When is preponderance of evidence applicable?
- The Supreme Court decides: Lawyers cannot be held liable for notarial violations unless there is clear evidence that they knowingly permitted the misuse of notarial commission.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.