This document discusses four special negligence doctrines: 1. Res Ipsa Loquitur allows negligence to be inferred from the fact that an accident occurred that normally would not happen absent negligence. 2. Negligence Per Se establishes that violation of a law is a legal breach of duty if the plaintiff belongs to the class protected by the law and the law aims to prevent injuries to that class. 3. The Danger Invites Rescue doctrine holds a tortfeasor liable for injuries caused to rescuers of victims put in danger by the tortfeasor's actions. 4. Dram Shop Acts impose liability on establishments that serve alcohol to intoxicated persons who later cause injuries.

1. Special Negligence Doctrine
1. Res Ipsa Loquitur. (a rule of evidence whereby the negligence  of an alleged
wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened)
2.Negligence Per Se. Violation of law is legal breach of duty.Plaintiff must show:
 Defendant broke a law/statute.
 Plaintiff is in special class to be protected; and
 Statute designed to prevent injury to Plaintiff.
3. Danger Invites Rescue doctrine. (if a tortfeasor  creates a circumstance that places
the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the
victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that
victim) 4. Dram Shop Acts.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
It means The thing speaks for itself /“Things speak for themselves”.
 Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
 negligence may be inferred (and a defendant must prove that he or she was
not negligent). This applies when the event causing damage or injury is one
that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence—train derailments,
falling elevators, and so on.
 It must be caused by something within the exclusive control of the defendant,
and
 it must not have been due to any act on the part of the injured party.
 Burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant.

2.  It applies when the event which is complained of would not ordinarily happen
in the absence of negligence.
 In such cases the burden of proof shifts from the complainant to the
defendant. He has to prove that he was not negligent.
 Must have 3 elements:
1. Type of injury did not occur except for negligence.
2. Activity was under complete control of defendant.
3. Plaintiff did not contribute to his own injury
EXAMPLE:
 Use of a wrong drug or a wrong gas during anaesthesia will frequently lead to
the imposition of liability and in some situations even the principle of res ipsa
loquitur may be applied.
 82 yr. female – wrongful death after sustaining 3rd degree water burns while
bathing Res Ipsa Loquitur - Injuries suffered by the resident do not occur in a
nursing facility in the absence of negligence, and the deceased was in the
defendant’s sole care custody & control.
Applying this doctrine requires proving that:
1. The injury is of a kind that typically would not occur in the absence of negligence.
2. The injury must be caused by something under the exclusive control of the an
anaesthesiologist.
3. The injury must not be due to any contribution on the part of the patient.
 Where a patient developed massive tissue emphysema due to wrong placement of
needle for jet ventilation of lungs, The Anaesthesiologist was held liable because if the
needle had been placed correctly into the trachea, tissue emphysema would not have
occurred.

3. where dictorine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable.
 Where an explosion occurred during the course of administering anaesthetic to
the patient when the technique had been frequently been used without any
mishap.
 Preanaesthetic evaluation not done.
 Following an operation under general anaesthesia, patient sustained hypoxic
brain damage in recovery ward.
 Unexplained cardiac arrest during anaesthesia leading to death is negligence.
Following Conditions are requited for application of Res Iipsa Loquitur 1.
The accident must be such kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of
some one’s negligence.
2. It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendants.
3. The mere occurrence of the event must raise of itself a reasonable inference that
the defendant or his servant or agent have been negligent.
4. Absence of any explanation how the accident occurred by the defendants.
5. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of
the plaintiff.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applied
 Res Iipsa Loquitur is not applicable when...
1. it is not applicable to all accidents; but only where cause is within knowledge
and control of defendant.

4. 2. Rule does not create a legal presumption of negligence and it is rebuttable
presumption.
3. Burden of proof to negligence is on plaintiff but some times it is less than
other cases.
4. It does not absolve plaintiff from burden of proof.
5. Defendant can show way in which the accident may have reasonably
occurred without negligence on his part.
 where a patient suffered permanent partial paralysis of legs following spinal
anaesthesia, the court said, “...Medical science has not yet reached a stage
where the law ought to presume that a patient must come out of an operation
as well or better than he went into it.”
 Patient developed meningitis after spinal anaesthetia. Court found that
anaesthetic was not contaminated and the staff had taken the usual
precautions to disinfect themselves before the operation, it held the hospital
was responsible for some fault in sterilisation procedure.
 in a case where globe was perforated in the course of giving a local block
prior to cataract surgery.