In the law, res ipsa loquitur is a negligence doctrine. It imposes liability in the absence of the usual elements of breach and causation when the circumstances pose a situation in which negligence must have occurred. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, an inference of negligence can arise when the plaintiff's injury (1) ordinarily would not have occurred in the absence of negligence, (2) was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) was not due to any voluntary action or contribution of the plaintiff. An example of a res ipsa situation is when the wrong limb is amputated during surgery. In such a case, with the patient under general anesthesia, the removal of the wrong limb would not occur in the absence of negligence, the instrumentality of the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant physician, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the mistake.

Ok--then, please, how does
"Res ipsa loquitur" = the thing speaks for itself. differ from
QED--"quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)"? I have often read/heard QED after some factual statement, but seemingly in ways where res ipsa loquitur would be more appropriate.

I would say that res ipsa loquitur, irrespective of any special legal significance, means that the thing requires no proof. QED says that the proof, which *is requred, has just been accomplished.

Thanks, Faldage. But hoo, boy, I could see me having problems with that, were I for some reason to start using either term. "Whaddya mean, I didn't prove it? I just SAID what happened, didn't I??"

Would you mind telling me whether I got these right or not?
...Augh, never mind, I can't think of anything that *I* couldn't see as having both, conceivably, justified. Ex.:
It's raining.
My eyes are brown.
It's a long way from here to England.

Dear Jackie: mostly in jest, your three sentences add up to
"non sequitur" = " it does not follow "

Oh! That's what I get for assuming everybody would read my mind, Dr. Bill--thanks for pointing that out. I really didn't mean for that to be as dumb a post as it actually reads!

I meant that I could imagine saying both res ipsa loquitur and QED after each of my examples.

At school, after proving a theorem by means of mathematical or scientific demonstration it was the done thing to close with the letters QED (schoolboy humour gave it as meaning Quite Easily Demonstrated ). This indicated that in your view, not always the master's, you had presented sufficient logical argument to prove the case.

Res ipsa loquitur, leaving aside the legal definition, seems closest to the French “ça va sans dire” or “that goes without saying”.

But taking Jackie's three statements:

It's raining.
My eyes are brown.
It's a long way from here to England.

The first two are facts, while the third is debatable, England is quite close compared to Mars [duck and run-e].

I learned "res ipsa loquitur" in course on legal medicine.
A post op patient has persistent abdominal pain. A flat plate (x-ray) of the abdomen shows a surgical instrument in his abdomen. Res ipsa loquitur - he is the victim of medical
malpractice.The surgeon has no defense.

Of course I also heard Perry Mason say it a couple times.

The first time I heard res ipsa loquitur was on NYPD Blue when the lovely assistant DA and future wife of the gruntly cop was excoriating said gruntly cop for his miserable performance on the witness stand. She said, "I'd say res ipsa loquitur, if I thought you knew what it meant." His barely printable response was, "Ipsa this, you prissy b***h."

Dear Faldage: But she married him, you say, which says a
lot about her.

It was a classic examplle of a cute meet, was it not?

I was inspired to create a 'Famous First Words' category by that exchange. Unfortunately, I don't have any other entries.

The cop, Sipowitz, had many problems. Together they worked most of them out, as I remember.

Res ipsa loquitur - he is the victim of medical malpractice.The surgeon has no defense.

As Sparteye, our lawyer, pointed out! OK, now fess up, Dr Bill... you too are now among the liver-choppers [running screaming for cover while hoping your sense of humor is intact]

Dear AS: I challenge you to demonstrate that I hacked anybody's hepar.

Dear AS: You are quick to condemn, slow to retract.

Saprteye: In the law, res ipsa loquitur is a negligence doctrine. It imposes liability in the absence of the usual elements of breach and causation when the circumstances pose a situation in which negligence must have occurred. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, an inference of negligence can arise when the plaintiff's injury (1) ordinarily would not have occurred in the absence of negligence, (2) was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) was not due to any voluntary action or contribution of the plaintiff. An example of a res ipsa situation is when the wrong limb is amputated during surgery. In such a case, with the patient under general anesthesia, the removal of the wrong limb would not occur in the absence of negligence, the instrumentality of the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant physician, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the mistake.


Dr Bill: I learned "res ipsa loquitur" in course on legal medicine.
A post op patient has persistent abdominal pain. A flat plate (x-ray) of the abdomen shows a surgical instrument in his abdomen. Res ipsa loquitur - he is the victim of medical
malpractice.The surgeon has no defense.

Of course I also heard Perry Mason say it a couple times.


Res ipsa loquitur (or is that QED?)

Dear Faldage: I took legal medicine before Sparteye was
born, I believe. I purposely omitted giving the legal
part of it, thinking a less limited application would be
more appropriate. I took nothing from Sparteye, I merely
added an additional example. And I also think the use of
acronyms, special symbols, and jargon known only to the
first members STINKS. If this be treason, make the most of
it.

You are quick to condemn, slow to retract.

Shouldn't have counted on your sense of humor, I guess.

Dr Bill, I don't have the luxury to stay online at AWADtalk all day. I shall now try to reason with you (again, and for the last time this season, I hope): chopping liver and mantling are expressions that mean one has evidently ignored a previous post. Sparteye used the amputation example, you used the tool left in the abdomen. Fine. But what has come to be the norm at this, and other message boards I'm aware of, is you acknowledge the previous poster's comment first. Which you did later, thus demantling. Or something.

I don't really expect you to understand but at least others who read this will.

Have you had another look at any of those marvelous Yahoo language sites I sent you?

Dear AS: I still don't see anything humorous about your
explicit implication that I had somehow wronged Sparteye.
Faldages fumbles are nugatory. Speak for yourself.

I just did. And that's all I have to say.

But you said nothing pertinent.

hey! guess what guys? I'm a Carpal now! isn't that neat?
<hugs all around>

Dear etaoin: But Daddy, the little girl said:
"Carpal tunnels hurt!"