The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. -Sharifa Almeera Tuahan

1. JURISPRUDENCE ON RES
IPSA LOQUITUR
By: Sharifa Almeera Tuahan

2. Dr. Victoria Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule
of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence
may be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
negligence.
It merely determines and regulates what shall be
prima facie evidence and facilitates the burden
of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due
care. The doctrine can be invoked when and
only when, under the circumstances involved,
direct evidence is absent and not readily
available.

3. Rogelio E. Ramos vs. Court of Appeals
The doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown.
(1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's
negligence;
(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.

4. Leah Alesna Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital
Res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to
be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case. It is generally
restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say, as a matter of
common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care were
not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised.
It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a
suit against a physician or a surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a
scientific treatment. The physician or surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why
any particular diagnosis was not correct, or why any particular scientific treatment did
not produce the desired result.

5. DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
Conduct on the part of the
plaintiff, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which
falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his protection.
It is the act or omission amounting to
want of care on the part of the
complaining party which, concurring
with the defendant’s negligence, is
the proximate cause of the injury.

6. DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING NEGLIGENCE
If the Physician, after a
prolonged treatment of a patient
which normally produces alleviation
of the condition, fails to investigate
non-response may be held liable if in
the exercise of the care and
diligence he could have discovered
the cause of non-response.

7. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION RISK
Anyone who voluntarily
assumes the risk of injury from a known
danger, if injured, is barred from
recovery.
“Violent non fit injuria” means
that a person who assents and injured
is not regarded in law to be injured.
NOTE: This is predicted upon
knowledge and consent.

8. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
A physician who has the last clear
chance of avoiding damage or injury
to his patient but negligently fails to
do so is liable.
NOTE: This doctrine implies thought,
appreciation, mental direction and
lapse of sufficient time to effectually
act upon impulse to save the life or
prevent injury to another.

9. DOCTRINE OF FORESEEABILITY
A physician cannot be held
liable for negligence if the injury
sustained by patient is on account of
unforeseen conditions.
NOTE: Such foreseeable injury may be
ascertained from the history, physical
examination, observation and from
information gathered from another
member of the family.

10. 1. Force majeure are extraordinary
events not foreseeable or avoidable,
events that could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, are inevitable.
1. Act of God is an extra-ordinary natural
event, without human intervention, that
cannot be reasonably foreseen,
avoided or prevented.
1. Accident is an event which happens
without any human agency or, if
happening through human agency, an
event which, under the circumstances,
is unusual to and not expected by the
person to whom it happens.

11. FELLOW SERVANT DOCTRINE
It provides that if a
servant(Employee) was injured
on account of the negligence
of his fellow servant, the
employee cannot be held
liable.

12. RESCUE DOCTRINE OR GOOD SAMARITAN
LAW
Any person who in good faith
renders emergency medical care or
assistance to an injured person at the
scene of the accident or other
emergency without expectation of
receiving intended compensation
from such injured party, shall not be
liable in civil damages for any
act/omision, not constituting gross
negligence, in the course of such
assistance.

13. DEEP POCKET RULE- the tortfeasors are
jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff-
patient can recover damages in full from
either.

14. CAUSES OF INCREASING MEDICAL
MALPRACTICES
1. Tackless, irresponsible comments and
unsubstantiated remarks.
2. Perceived arrogance, aloofness and
uncaring attitude.
3. Negative perception by the public on the
medical community.
4. Poor record keeping with regards to the
medical records of the patient.
5. Perception that physicians are generally
not comfortable with lawsuits, court
processes and negative media exposure.
6. Commercialization of medical practice.
7. Awareness of patients for their rights.
8. Bad outcome of treatment due to
perceived incompetence of the physician.

15. THANK YOU