Fontaine v British Columbia (Official Administrator), 1998 • Ratio: Res ipsa loquitur is no longer good law – circumstantial evidence will be treated as supporting a reasonable inference if it convinces the trier of fact on a balance of probabilities. • Fact: Fontaine went on a hunting trip and never came back – his body was recovered, along with that of his hunting partner, crashed in their car in a creek bed. There were severe rainstorms and terrible road conditions in the area at the time of the accident. Fontaine’s wife is claiming compensation under BC legislation on the basis that the driver (Fontaine’s hunting partner) presumably negligently caused the accident. • Issue: 1. When does res ipsa loquitur apply? 2. What is the effect of invoking res ipsa loquitur? Res ipsa loquitur is no longer good law. • Reasoning (CML - Major): o Res Ipsa Loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) – doctrine applies when these circumstantial facts are proven (1 & 2): 1. The thing that inflicted the damage was under the sole control of the defendant (or of someone for whom he is responsible/whom he has a right to control) 2. The occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence 3. There must be no evidence as to why/how the occurrence took place o If these conditions are satisfied, it follows, on a balance of probability, that the defendant was negligent and is thus liable for the damage (i.e. circumstantial evidence constitutes reasonable evidence of negligence) o N.B. If there is any evidence as to how occurrence took place, the appeal to res ipsa loquitur is inappropriate à question of defendant’s negligence must be determined on that evidence o Res ipsa loquitur is a permissible fact inference; judge decides if it can be made, jury decides if it will (it is not bound to find negligence on the basis of RIL) o If defendant produces a reasonable explanation that is as consistent with no negligence as the res ipsa loquitur is with negligence à neutralizes the inference of negligence and plaintiff’s case must fail because they did not discharge their burden of proof o The law would be better served if the maxim was treated as expired: circumstantial evidence must be weighed with direct evidence to determine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for negligence against defendant. o In this case: the circumstantial evidence (tires were worn, car left road fast enough to break through trees) is not strong enough to raise the presumption v. the defendant; the bad weather means the accident could equally have happened without negligence.