What is the main function of "res ipsa loquitur" in establishing negligence?

The main function of "res ipsa loquitur" is that it allows for an assumption of negligence based on the nature of the accident, which occurs in situations where the circumstances surrounding an injury strongly suggest that negligence took place. This doctrine is particularly useful when direct evidence of negligence is hard to obtain because the incident usually involves events that the plaintiff cannot directly observe.

In applying "res ipsa loquitur," courts look for three primary elements: the incident would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, the instrumentality that caused the harm was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm. When these conditions are met, the court infers that negligence likely occurred, thus establishing a presumption that the defendant is at fault.

This principle does not shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff or require the defendant to prove their innocence. Rather, it makes it easier for the plaintiff by allowing them to proceed with their case despite a lack of direct evidence of negligence, based solely on the nature of the accident itself. It is also important to note that "res ipsa loquitur" is not limited to criminal cases; it applies primarily within the context of civil negligence claims.