Editing Res ipsa loquitur (section)

===United Kingdom===
The doctrine exists in both [[English law]] and [[Scots law]].

====England and Wales====
In [[English tort law]], the effect of ''res ipsa loquitur'' is a strong inference in favour of the claimant that negligence has taken place. It does not however fully reverse the [[legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] (''Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat'', 1988).<ref>{{citation|year=1988|location=RTR|section=298|title=Ng Chun Pui v. Li Chuen Tat}}</ref>

The requirement of control is important in English law. This requirement was not satisfied in ''Easson v. LNE Ry'' [1944] 2 KB 421, where a small child fell off a train several miles after it had left the station. It was considered that the door of the train was not sufficiently under control of the railway company after the train started moving and could have been opened by somebody for whom the company was not responsible. This case was distinguished from the earlier ''Gee v. Metropolitan Ry''<ref>{{citation|year=1873|location=LR QB|section=161|title=Gee v. Metropolitan Ry}}</ref> where the plaintiff fell from the train immediately after it left the station, when the door through which he fell could still be considered to be fully controlled by the railway company.

The requirement that the exact cause of the accident must be unknown is illustrated by the case of ''Barkway v. South Wales Transport''.<ref>{{citation|year=1950|location=1 All ER |section=392|title=[[Barkway v. South Wales Transport]]}}</ref> In this case a bus veered across the road and it was known that the accident was caused by a flat tyre. In this case, the plaintiff could not be assisted by ''res ipsa loquitur'' and had to go on to prove that the flat tyre was caused by the transport company's negligence.

====Scotland====
The doctrine exists in the Scots law of ''[[delict]]''. The leading case is that of ''Scott v London & Catherine Dock Co''.<ref>{{citation|title=Scott v. London & Catherine Dock Co 3 H&C 596|year=1865}}</ref> This case laid down 3 requirements for the doctrine to apply:
#There must be reasonable evidence of negligence
#The circumstances must be under the direct control of the defender or his servants
#The accident must be of such a type that would not occur without negligence.

In ''Scott'', the court held that sacks of sugar do not fall out of warehouses and crush passers-by without somebody having been negligent along the way, so the plaintiff did not need to show how it happened.

Recent examples in Scotland are ''McDyer v Celtic Football Club''<ref>{{citation|year=2000|title=McDyer v. Celtic Football Club|location=SC|section=379|url=http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2000/55.html}}</ref>  and ''McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd''.<ref>{{citation|title=McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd|year=1995|location=SLT|section=211}}</ref>