Byrne v. Boadle

[Plaintiff was walking along a highway when he was struck by a barrel of flour that was being lowered from defendant's window. Defendant was a flour dealer. Plaintiff submitted no evidence of negligence other than the facts above, arguing that negligence was established under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant argued that plaintiff must submit some direct evidence of negligence.]

Chief Baron POLLOCK. I am of opinion this rule should be made absolute to enter the verdict for the plaintiff for the amount at which the jury assessed the damages. Suppose a man to be walking under a warehouse, as was the case here, and a barrel was to roll out and fall upon him, the barrel coming from a height above, how could he possibly tell by whose negligence it was done? It was proved in evidence, in this case, that the entire warehouse and premises were in the defendant's occupation, used by him for the carrying on his trade, and that the barrel which fell out, or was being lowered, came from the warehouse of the defendant and caused the injury to the plaintiff. That would be of itself prima facie evidence of negligence by the defendant, or those for whose acts he was responsible. The plaintiff is not to be obliged to go about and inquire the cause of such an accident-who were in the warehouse above him, and their business there; how it was done, and such like: it is similar to that of a man who has to go through a public passage where a building is being erected, and an injury is caused to him by some of the materials falling on him whilst passing. This would be prima facie evidence of negligence against the builder; here the evidence before the court was, that the plaintiff and his wife were passing along the Scotland Road, in Liverpool, and when they were dose against the defendant's warehouse, the whole of which was in his occupation, used by him as a flour dealer, there came down suddenly upon the man a barrel of flour, and thus the accident occurred to the plaintiff of which he complained. This is one of those cases in which, I think, a presumption of negligence by defendant is raised, and it was for him, who had all the means of evidence and knowledge within his reach, to meet it. It having been shown that the defendant had the entire possession and exclusive use of this warehouse, it would be presumed that the accident arose from his want of care, unless he gave some explanation of the cause by which it was produced, which explanation the plaintiff could not be expected to give, not having the same means of knowledge. . . .