Tort; Negligence; breach of the duty of care; proof of breach; res ipsa loquitur; requirements.
Facts: Schellenberg was a mechanic employed by Tunnel Holdings. His work involved using tools driven by compressed air. One day, while working with a grinder in his employer's workshop, a compressed air hose became detached and began waving about uncontrollably, causing injury when it struck Schellenberg hard in the face. As a result of the injury suffered Schellenberg became unable to work. He sued Tunnel Holdings for Negligence.
Issue: Could it be inferred from the circumstances that Tunnel Holdings had failed to exercise reasonable care?
Decision: The proved facts were insufficient to draw an inference as to why the hose had become detached.
Reason: It was held that Tunnel Holdings had the necessary control of the workplace to be responsible for harm to its employees and therefore owed a duty of care. However, no evidence had been led that proved why the accident had happened. The court took the view that a high pressure hose might become detached without any negligence by the defendant employer, for example, because of a hidden defect in the machinery or an unexpected surge of air pressure. The court found that in these circumstances res ipsa loquitur could not apply. The court pointed out that this maxim is not based on any special principle, and is in fact simply an aid to logical reasoning by inference.