(The thing speaks for itself)

a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.

The doctrine indicates that there is no need to provide any further detail the facts of the case are sufficient to find liability. Generally, because the facts are so obvious, a party does not need to provide further explanation. The phrase is most often applied to civil tort claims in which liability is clearly established merely based on a review of the facts.

The condition usually stated as necessary for the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur are:

(1) Inference of Negligence

The

accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence;

(2) Exclusive Defendant

Control

by

the

It must be caused by an agency or

instrumentality within the control of the defendant; and

exclusive

(3) Freedom Negligence

from

Contributory

It must not have been due to any

voluntary action of contribution on the part of the plaintiff.

Africa, et al. vs. Caltex 16 SCRA 448

Facts: A fire broke out at the Caltex service station. It started while gasoline was being hosed form a tank into the underground storage. The fire spread and burned several houses, among which was a house owned by the plaintiffs. The cause of the fire was not shown by the evidence.

Issue: Whether or not, without proof as to the cause and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply so as to presume negligence on the part of the defendant.

Ruling:
Where the thing which cause the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those how have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

The gasoline station with all its appliances, equipments and employees, was under the control of appellees (defendants). A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were appellees and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care.

The Defendants were held liable