res ipsa loquitur


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Financial, Acronyms, Wikipedia.

res ipsa loquitur

[rās′ ip′sə lok′witoo͡r]
Etymology: L, the thing speaks for itself
a legal concept, important in many malpractice suits, describing a situation in which an injury occurred when the defendant was solely and exclusively in control and in which the injury would not have occurred had due care been exercised. Classic examples of res ipsa loquitur are a sponge left in the abdomen after abdominal surgery or the amputation of the wrong extremity.
Latin for ‘the thing speaks for itself.’ A legal doctrine under which a plaintiff’s burden to prove a defendant’s negligence is minimal and may not require expert witnesses as the details of the incident are clear and understandable to a jury—e.g., foreign objects, gauze, surgical instruments, left in the patient during surgery

res ipsa loquitur

The thing speaks for itself Law & medicine A legal doctrine under which a plaintiff's burden to prove negligence is minimal as the details of the incident are clear and understandable to a jury–eg, foreign objects left behind during surgery, eg towels. See Medical malpractice.

res ip·sa lo·qui·tur

(res ip'să lō'kwi-tŭr)
The thing speaks for itself; the circumstantial evidence (of malpractice) is obvious and does not require an expert witness to testify.
[L.]

res ip·sa lo·qui·tur

(res ip'să lō'kwi-tŭr)
Latin meaning the thing speaks for itself.
[L.]

res ipsa loquitur (rās´ ip´sə lō´kwi-toor),

adj a Latin phrase meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” Used in actions for injury by negligence in which the happening itself is accepted as proof.
References in periodicals archive ?
accepts the hypothesis that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur grew out
Application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence actions is governed by Section 7.
The court held, inter alia, that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was not applicable in this case.
The court held that the lower court had properly invoked the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL).
THE COURT REFUSED TO INVOKE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR (RIL) HOLDING THAT THIS WAS NOT A PROPER CASE IN WHICH TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE.
She also claimed that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL) applied on the basis that the infection was the result of a breach in sterile technique in the operating room and would not have happened had there not been a breach of sterile technique.
On December 6, 1996, the Scotts sued Beechnut, Vencore Hospital and a physician alleging negligence under state law and negligence based on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL).
In some states, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL) may be applicable.
After the patient rested, the trial court granted the defendants' joint motion for a directed verdict on all of the patient's claims except those negligence claims which were based on Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL).
The court refused to apply the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL).
Editor's Note: Despite the ruling in this case, it should be noted that Rhode Island does, in fact, recognize the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL).
The patient also claimed that the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL) applied on the basis that the infection was the result of a breach in sterile technique in the operating room and would not have happened had there not been a breach of sterile technique.