Talk:Res ipsa loquitur

early comments

Which law students make that joke in popular culture? I know of none!

Everyone says that this means "the thing speaks for itself", but I'm pretty sure a more accurate translation would be "the thing itself speaks". "For itself" would be "ipsae". [The singular dative "for itself" in Latin is not "ipsae" but "ipsi". See - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipse - "Irregular: similar to first and second declensions but with genitive singular ending in -īus and dative singular ending in -ī.]

Sorry to do this anonymously, but you can certainly research it for yourself to confirm-- in Latin, word order does not determine syntax. Therefore "res ipsa loquitur," can be properly translated in any order, so long as that order is syntactically sensical in the language into which it is translated. I would suggest, then, that you change

"Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, 'The thing itself speaks' but is more often translated 'The thing speaks for itself.'"

to

"Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin, most often translated 'The thing speaks for itself'."

The original sentence implies that word order contributes to what would be a "literal meaning" of the Latin phrase, which is not the case, as any Latin translator will tell you.

However, from Oxford: Could it not mean "things speak for themselves". This is as ipsa is the plural to ipsae the singular version and 'RES' and 'LOQUITUR' are nominally spelt as they are in singular as well as plurally.

(LOQUITUR is NOT plural -- it is the third person singular of the deponent verb LOQUOR. The third person plural is LOQUUNTUR.) Therefore, 'RES' is nominative singular because it is the subject of the singular verb 'LOQUITUR', and 'IPSA' is nominative feminine singular because it qualifies 'RES' and therefore agrees in case and gender and number with 'RES' which is nominative feminine singular.

It can be taken that a legal situation may very well fall within the veranda of the Latin translation as a whole (in proof that the common mistake as previously mentioned, categorically being humoured at could well be along the lines of accuracy).

The oxford thing doesn't sound right. Res is feminine gender, so ipsa has to be either singular nominative or ablative in order to have gender agreement. Anyways, using ipsa this way is very common in latin (Caesar used it alot to speak about himself in the third person. "Caesar ipse..."), using ipsa to intensify the sentence or add emphasis, so generally it would be translated as, "The thing itself speaks." or "The thing speaks itself." Ipsa is just an intensifying word to add emphasis. "things" don't often speak so it is just taking advantage of this to strengthen the metaphor. "The thing itself speaks." is probably the best translation, although to express the same concept in English one would use the idiom "It speaks for itself."--66.102.196.38 23:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So at least connotatively "The thing speaks for itself." is still a decent translation. It would be considered by some to be a better translation simply because it "sounds more like English." I happen to agree. The difference between the two versions is so slight as to not vary the understood meaning so it becomes a matter of of taste. Would you prefer the thing to speak itself "of its own accord" or for itself "on its own behalf?"--66.102.196.38 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally the thing speaks for itself, if am not mistaken would be ipsi rather than ipsa.--66.102.196.38 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be good to clarify that the 4-point definition at the top is the definition of negligence, not the definition of res ipsa. 38.124.22.170 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm actually responding to a comment from 15 years ago...

I agree that res ipsa loquitur is best translated as "the thing itself speaks" or "the very thing speaks." The reason is that ipse/ipsa/ipsum isn't a reflexive pronoun, but an intensive pronoun, giving emphasis to another substantive. The reflexive pronoun would be se. In res ipsa loquitur, both res and ipsa are in the nominative case. (I don't think ipsa (i.e., ipsā) is ablative, because I'm not aware of any ablative of purpose. However, there is a dative of purpose.)

So how would we say "the thing speaks for itself"? Both res pro se loquitur and res sibi loquitur seem plausible. The former construction uses pro + ablative of se and the latter construction uses the dative of purpose with the dative of se.

Perhaps in another 15 years, someone else will respond. :) Talmage (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Category: UK Case law

Recently, a wikipedian removed the category "United Kingdom case law", observing that Res ipsa loquitur is not case law, but rather a legal principle that is developed through case law. But I believe that the category was there not because Res ipsa loquitur is itself case law, but because the article contains an extensive discussion of Byrne v Boadle and the associated judicial reasoning; this is United Kingdom case law. I have restored the category. -- Dominus 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology.

The word "plaintiff" is no longer suitable for English law under the Civil Procedure Rules, and should instead be referred to as the "Claimant". Will.S 22/03/06

There are courts outside England. (Also, note "elevator" rather than "lift.") Twin Bird 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

How do you pronounce Res Ipsa Loquitur? Is there a US and UK difference in usage ? 202.42.255.254 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) G

What is the convention for English/American spelling differences? This is not exclusively an English legal doctrine. (E.g. story vs storey)170.140.83.69 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If the case took place in England, and there are direct quotes from a British court judgement, then you might as well use British spelling... AnonMoos 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a moot point now, but note that "elevator," an American/Canadian term, is used elsewhere in the article, as well as "plaintiff.". Also, in the history, it seems to have originally been "story" until someone "corrected" it. "Story" stays. Twin Bird 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur is Latin, so there is no question of English vs. American spelling. --Thnidu (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wheel falls off of back of truck

I have a dim recollection of a US negligence case in which res ipsa loquitur was involved; the case concerned a when a spare wheel, chained to the back of a truck, came detached from the truck while the truck was driving on the highway, and injured the occupants of the care travelling behind the truck.

Does anyone remember the details of this? And is it significant and unusual in any way that would merit its mention in this article?

-- Dominus 17:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dominus,

That case was McDougald v. Perry, 716 So.2d 783: a case out of the Supreme Court of Florida.

PROCEDURE: Jury at trial level found in favor of P. On appeal, district court reversed with instructions that trial court direct a verdict in favor of D. District court said that the trial court erred by not directing a verdict on the issue of negligence and by instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Supreme Court of Florida reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for consideration of remaining issues.

ISSUE: Was it proper for trial court to give res ipsa loquitur instruction?

HOLDING: Yes.

REASONING:

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur provides an injured plaintiff with a common-sense inference of negligence where direct proof of negligence is wanting, provided certain elements consistent with negligent behavior are present. Essentially the injured plaintiff must establish that the instrumentality causing his or her injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the accident is one that would not, in the ordinary course of events, have occurred without negligence on the part of the one in control.

Common experience would tell us that a tire in a cradle would normally not fall out but for the lack of reasonable care of the truck driver to properly secure it.

Zach Thomas

Thanks very much! -- Dominus 21:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In the answer above, signed only as by "Zach Thomas" (and almost certainly not by Zach Thomas), loquitur was misspelled as loquitor all three times it was used. I have corrected it so users won't be misled. --Thnidu (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Elevator example

The elevator example seems, to me, highly suspect. Elevators do fall, and not always from negligence; damaging accidents, misuse, and sabotage are common enough that I doubt a judge would put this under that category. Has a case similar to this ever occurred? Twin Bird 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The elevator case is from Giles v. City of New Haven, 636 A.2d 1335 (1994) where the facts are very similar to what the author included in their fictitious example. However, the case dealt more with the issue of the "exclusive control" element/rule of res ipsa loquitur rather than "contributory negligence." I think the discussion is not appropriate in this article, because "contributory negligence" is an affirmative defense, which the defendant has the burden of proof, and "res ipsa loquitur" is a theory under which the plaintiff has the burden of proof to satisfy the duty and breach elements of negligence. SomaGaze 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The elevator case seems like clear OR to me. Whether or not it's an accurate example, it's completely unsourced. DoctorCaligari (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How, exactly, would you "source" a fictional hypothetical example, except to use someone else's example? bd2412 T 01:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You would "source" an example by finding an authoritative law journal which had published an example. By the way, it's not "hypothetical". DoctorCaligari (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The example in the article is a hypothetical. bd2412 T 03:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Hunter Thompson quote?

Sorry for the anon, but is the Hinter Thompson quote in any way relevant to the substance of this entry? Any more than countless other uses in American literature? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.93.146 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Hunter S. Thompson is a force of nature in his own right, as well as a cultural phenomenon, and he used the phrase so often that majority of the literate population will sooner associate the phrase with Thompson than any of its other uses. It's so popular that it even appears as part of many Gonzo tattoos, & has for some time. So yes, associating the quote with HST is extremely culturally relevant & thus far outweighs the countless other uses in American Lit....especially since it was used as almost a signature at the end of countless HST articles. Like the man or not, it's a phrase that will be forever associated with him & Gonzo Journalism...Res ipsa loquitur, as it were. 24.12.3.209 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Uh, did you really mean to invoke the Missouri small-town lawyer, Hairy-asS Truman, the deceased eponym of that TLA?? That HST also had to take a lot of guff, but he also knew how to throw it back at them!
--JerzyA (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with Prima Facie

No, I don't think I have to justify, but I will anyway.

It is quite obviously redundant. No question of that-- in fact it was on the title of my original coy edit. The question is which one should go.

Both articles have contained for a long time comparisons between the two. I copy edited one from the other, to keep them consistent. I am not happy that they are in both places-- having manually to keep them synchronized--, but then one must choose which one they are in. I don't think a unanimous decision should be taken by one editor to decide which. SimonTrew (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ipse dixit

compare and contrast with " IPSE DIXIT " 121.127.215.241 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)