Many people are confused about the difference between an accident and negligence.

The boundary
between a blameless accident and an accident that gives rise to a claim for compensation can be seen as
blurred. The law, however, does make a distinction. If you have been injured in an accident that was not
your fault and you want to know if you are entitled to personal injurycompensation, you are advised to
contact a personal injury lawyer. A personal injury lawyer is an expert at detecting when an accident
becomes negligence at law.An accident is simply an incident that no-one could possibly foresee and for
which it is not appropriate to place blame. Accidents occur when no-one has control over the incident
and does not have any responsibility to prevent it. It is not possible to obtain personal injury
compensation for an injury sustained as a result of an accident. A personal injury solicitor can assess
your injury and the circumstances leading to it and determine if it was caused by an accident.
Negligence is a more complicated concept. It originates from the common law of tort and has a lengthy
history of development through the courts. Negligence is essentially an incident that is caused by the act
or omission of another person in breach of their duty of care. A duty of care is the duty to avoid acts or
omissions that you can reasonably foresee causing an injury to a neighbour. A duty of care can be owed
in common law, such as a doctors duty of care towards their patients, or imposed by statute, such as an
employers duty of care towards the health and safety of their employees. A personal injury lawyer can
explain in what contexts a duty of care arises.
In order to receive personal injury compensation for an injury resulting from an accident that was not
your fault, your personal injury solicitor will have to prove that the accident was a result of someone
elses negligence and not a mere accident. In addition, they will have to prove that the negligence did in
fact cause your injury. This is the principle of causation and is an important part of a negligence claim.
For further legal advice on personal injury compensation claims, you can contact a personal injury
lawyer. They will assess your claim and determine if you have a valid claim and are entitled to receive
compensation for your injury.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Definition:
Latin: the thing speaks for itself.
Generally, in tort, the mere fact of an accident is not proof of negligence. But in some cases, negligence
is presumed on the defendant since the object causing injury was in or under his or her control. This is
the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rebuttable presumption rebutted by showing that the event was an inevitable
accident and had nothing to do with the defendants responsibility of control or supervision.

Examples of res ipsa loquitur, not all of which can be assumed to apply today or in all jurisdictions, but
which illustrate the doctrine:
Getting hit by a rock which flies off a passing dump truck;
A ship in motion collides with an anchored ship;
Damages occasioned by the collision of two trains of a same railway;
Hit or injured in an attack by a known-to-be vicious domestic dog;
Hit from cargo falling from a crane; or
Hit by bricks falling from a private bridge.
These events imputes negligence (res ipsa loquitur) and can only be defeated if the defendant can show
that the event was a total and inevitable accident.

Judicial consideration of the doctrine has, and continues to this day to be, varied.

In the US Supreme Court, 1912, San Juan Light & Transit Co. v. Requena (224 US 89):
"When a thing which causes injury, without fault of the injured person, is shown to be under the
exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not
occur if the one having such control uses proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
an explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant's want of care."
In 1947, Jesionowski v. Boston & MRR (329 US 452) purported to:
"... cut through the mass of verbiage built up around the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that (it) means
that the facts of the occurrence warrant the inference of negligence, not that they compel such an
inference; that they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence where direct evidence of it may be
lacking, but it is evidence to be weighed, not necessarily to be accepted as sufficient; that they call for
explanation or rebuttal, not necessarily that they require; that they make a case to be decided by the
jury, not that they forestall the verdict."
In 1998, Canada's Supreme Court (Justice Major), in Fontaine v ICBC (oddly indexed as "Fontaine v BC"),
said that we cannot even continue to call it a "doctrine"; that it is "expired" and has only "limited use".

But other Canadian courts have been more receptive.

In a 1997 Alberta case which does not appear to have been published on the Internet (Naicken v City of
Edmonton), Justice Langston of the Court of QB adopted these words at paras 28-32 (edited extract):
"The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has its foundation in the concept that the defendant should not be
able to thwart a legitimate claim by the plaintiff by means of his silence or his unilateral control over
those matters which would otherwise provide evidence. Today the doctrine is generally accepted as
having three elements....

When the thing that inflicted the damage was under the sole management and control of the
defendant, or someone for whom he is responsible or whom he has a right to control;

The occurrence is such that it would not have happened without negligence. If these two conditions
are satisfied it follows, on a balance of probability, that the defendant, or the person for whom he is
responsible, must have been negligent. There is, however, a further negative condition;

There must be no evidence as to why or how the occurrence took place. If there is, then appeal to res
ipsa loquitur is inappropriate, for the question of the defendant's negligence must be determined on
that evidence.

"The (first two) elements harken back to the historical roots of this doctrine.

"The remaining element relating to the drawing of an inference as to negligence, is in essence a
common sense application of circumstantial evidence."
EIGHT CRANE DANGER SIGNS TO WATCH FOR
If you work around cranes, you should be on the lookout for the following eight danger signs of
improper operation. If you see any of these occurring on a jobsite, immediately inform a supervisor
before a catastrophe takes place. Here are things to watch for:
1. Outriggers, crawler tracks, or tires raised off the ground while operating. This is an extremely
dangerous condition which indicates the crane is being overloaded and may tip over or collapse.
The wrong move in this situation can cause a catastrophe.
2. Operating close to power lines or other dangerous objects. Electrocution due to contact with
power lines is the leading cause of crane related fatalities. Detailed federal regulations for
proximity to high voltage sources must be strictly enforced. Any potential danger should be
pointed out to the crane operator or a supervisor-but never touch the crane at this time.
3. Riding the load or crane hook. This is a serious violation of federal and state safety regulations.
Crane structures and cables have far lower strength margins for handling material than what is
required for lifting personnel. Workers must never be suspended from a crane boom unless an
approved personnel basket with mandatory safety equipment is used, and lifting procedures are
strictly followed.
4. Visible structural damage on the crane or rigging. There is little or no back up system in the load-
supporting components of most cranes. A damaged component can fail completely and without
warning, causing the boom or load to fall.
5. Modifications made by adding extra counterweight or holding down the rear of the crane. All
job initiated modifications are illegal and may permit overloading the crane. If not approved by
the crane manufacturer in writing, these modifications can over stress critical structural
components, which could cause failure of the crane.
6. A crane operating near a trench or excavation. Cranes exert extremely high loads on the soil
near the tracks, outriggers, or tires. A crane set up in close proximity to an excavation can cause
soil failure, crane turnover, and possible disaster.
7. The crane is noticeably out of level while operating. There is no faster way to collapse a crane
boom than to impose a side force on the boom. Working out of level creates a dynamic side
force which means a crane collapse may be imminent.
8. The crane's hoist line is not vertical at all times during operation. This indicates improper
operation. A hoist line which is not vertical obviously indicates that the load is not hanging
straight down. Out of plumb loads can cause crane collapse by generating side forces on the
boom. In some instances, the crane may tip over if the load swings.