hospital had been negligent. The presumption may arise when the claimant has satisfied the court as to what has occurred but has not been able to show exactly how it occurred. For the presumption to arise, the situation must have been under the control of the defendant; thus, it is particularly likely to arise where an accident has occurred on premises under the control of the defendant. The leading case is: SCOTT v LONDON AND ST KATHERINE DOCKS CO (1865) 3 H & C 596 The defendants dropped a bag of sugar from a crane onto the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff having satisfied the court on this, the Court of Exchequer was prepared to find that the plaintiff had raised a presumption that the defendant had been negligent. In the judgment of Erle CJ, the rule was, at p 601: : A person whose negligent conduct has caused death or personal injury cannot rely on a contract term or a notice in order to escape civil liability to compensate for damage caused. UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-97

Chapter

hospital had been negligent. The presumption may arise when the claimant has satisfied the court as to what has occurred but has not been able to show exactly how it occurred. For the presumption to arise, the situation must have been under the control of the defendant; thus, it is particularly likely to arise where an accident has occurred on premises under the control of the defendant. The leading case is: SCOTT v LONDON AND ST KATHERINE DOCKS CO (1865) 3 H & C 596 The defendants dropped a bag of sugar from a crane onto the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff having satisfied the court on this, the Court of Exchequer was prepared to find that the plaintiff had raised a presumption that the defendant had been negligent. In the judgment of Erle CJ, the rule was, at p 601:

Chapter

hospital had been negligent. The presumption may arise when the claimant has satisfied the court as to what has occurred but has not been able to show exactly how it occurred. For the presumption to arise, the situation must have been under the control of the defendant; thus, it is particularly likely to arise where an accident has occurred on premises under the control of the defendant. The leading case is: SCOTT v LONDON AND ST KATHERINE DOCKS CO (1865) 3 H & C 596 The defendants dropped a bag of sugar from a crane onto the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff having satisfied the court on this, the Court of Exchequer was prepared to find that the plaintiff had raised a presumption that the defendant had been negligent. In the judgment of Erle CJ, the rule was, at p 601:

ABSTRACT

The defendants dropped a bag of sugar from a crane onto the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff having satisfied the court on this, the Court of Exchequer was prepared to find that the plaintiff had raised a presumption that the defendant had been negligent. In the judgment of Erle CJ, the rule was, at p 601:

There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management of the machinery use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.