Res ipsa loquitur and limits of sovereign immunity applied to a truck-fire negligence claim involving famine relief work.

Where a truck catches fire while under the defendant's exclusive control and the accident is of a kind that would not ordinarily occur without negligence, res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence unless the defendant satisfactorily rebuts it; on these facts, negligence of the driver was established. Famine relief work was not treated as an exclusively sovereign function in law, so the State could not claim immunity for the servant's negligent act in that context. The trial court's decree was restored and the appeal succeeded with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the circumstances of the truck catching fire justified an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; (ii) whether the State was immune from liability on the ground that the driver was engaged in famine relief work as a sovereign function.

Issue (i): Whether the circumstances of the truck catching fire justified an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Analysis: The vehicle was under the management of the defendant's servant, and the accident was of a kind that would not ordinarily happen if proper care had been taken. There was no satisfactory explanation of how the fire occurred, while the surrounding circumstances indicated a defective condition of the truck and knowledge of that condition on the part of the driver. In such a case the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the probability of negligence.

Conclusion: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and negligence on the part of the driver was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the State was immune from liability on the ground that the driver was engaged in famine relief work as a sovereign function.

Analysis: Famine relief work was held not to be a function which, in law, could be treated as exclusively sovereign in the traditional sense. It was not shown to be a matter that only the State could undertake, and therefore the State could not claim immunity from liability for the negligent act of its servant in that context.

Conclusion: The State was not immune from liability.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside and the decree of the trial court was restored, so the appeal succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accident occurs under the exclusive management of the defendant and the event is not one that ordinarily happens without negligence, an inference of negligence may be drawn unless satisfactorily rebutted; sovereign immunity will not be available where the activity cannot properly be characterised as an exclusively sovereign function.

---