Editing Res ipsa loquitur (section)

=== Hong Kong ===
Hong Kong is one of the common law jurisdictions that use the doctrine of ''res ipsa loquitur''.

Some lawyers prefer to avoid the expression ''res ipsa loquitur'' (for example, Hobhouse LJ in ''Radcliff v. Plymouth'').<ref name="Radcliffe">{{citation|title=Ratcliffe v. Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority|year=1998|section=PIQRP170}}</ref> But other lawyers (and judges too) still find the expression a convenient one (for example, see the judgement of [[Kemal Bokhary|Mr Justice Bokhary]], a Permanent Judge of the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal|Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong]], in ''Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong'').<ref name="Sanfield">{{citation|title=Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong|year=2003|section=6 HKCFAR 207}}</ref>

The expression ''res ipsa loquitur'' is not a [[doctrine]] but a "mode of inferential reasoning" and applies only to accidents of ''unknown cause''.<ref name=Sanfield/><ref>{{citation|title=''Schellenberg v. Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd''|section=200 CLR 121|year=2000}}</ref> ''Res ipsa loquitur'' comes into play where an accident of unknown cause is one that would not normally happen without [[negligence]] on the part of the [[defendant]] in control of the object or activity which injured the [[plaintiff]] or damaged his property. In such a situation the [[court]] is able to infer [[negligence]] on the [[defendant]]'s part unless he offers an acceptable explanation consistent with his having taken [[reasonable care]].<ref name="Sanfield"/>