Kessebeh v. Coker (Civil Case No. 108/66)) [1967] SLSC 1243 (03 June 1967);
Evidence -burden of proof-negligence-burden of proof where res ipsa loquitur on party against whom presumption of negligence raised:
Evidence-presumptions-presumption of law-res ipsa loquiturburden of proof where res ipsa loquitur on party against whom presumption of negligence raised
Tort-damages-mitigation of damages-plaintiff's duty to minimise or reduce damages by acting reasonably-not entitled to increase claim by voluntary act
Tort-negligence--evidence-direct evidence not essential-indirect or circumstantial evidence raising inference may be sufficient
Where the fact of an accident raises a presumption of negligence against one of the parties involved the burden of proving that he was not negligent is upon that party (page 181, lines 12-16
In order to prove negligence by inference the facts proved must be such as to put the matter beyond a mere surmise or conjecture; they must lead to an inference which is areasonable deduction from the facts actually observed (page 180, lines16-27
In order to establish the defence of contributory negligence the defendant must prove, first, that the plaintiff failed to take ordinary care for himself, i.e., such care as areasonable man would take for his own safety and, secondly, that his failure to take care was a contributory cause of the accident (page 181,lines 2-7
