[Latin, The thing speaks for itself.

] A rebuttable presumption or inference that the defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that the instrumentality or condition causing the injury was in the defendant's exclusive control and that the accident was one that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of Negligence.

contributory negligence n. a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to
his/her own negligence (his/her negligence "contributed" to the accident), the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. Under this rule, a badly injured person who was only slightly negligent could not win in court against a very negligent defendant. If Joe Tosspot were driving drunk and speeding and Angela Comfort were going 25 m.p.h. but six inches over the center-line, most likely Angela would be precluded from any recovery (receiving any money for injuries or damages) from a car crash. The possible unfair results have led some juries to ignore the rule and, in the past few decades, most states have adopted a comparative negligence test in which the relative percentages of negligence by each person are used to determine damage recovery (how much money would be paid to the injured person.) (See: negligence, comparative negligence) A defense, facts offered by a party against whom proceedings have been instituted to diminish a plaintiff's Cause of Action or defeat recovery to an action in Negligence, which entails proving that the plaintiff knew of a dangerous condition and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to it. In the law of TORTS, the doctrine that excuses or negates the effect of the plaintiff's contributory Negligence and permits him or her to recover, in particular instances, damages regardless of his or her own lack of ordinary care. The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself. The defendant has the final opportunity to prevent the harm that the plaintiff otherwise will suffer. The doctrine was formulated to relieve the severity of the application of the contributory negligence rule against the plaintiff, which completely bars any recovery if the person was at all negligent. The facility to perceive, know in advance, or reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions. In the law of Negligence, the foreseeability aspect of proximate causethe event which is the primary cause of the injuryis established by proof that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence and circumspection, should reasonably have foreseen that his or her negligent act would imperil others, whether by the event that transpired or some similar occurrence, and regardless of what the actor surmised would happen in regard to the actual event or the manner of causation of injuries. A common-law rule governing job-related injuries that prevents employees from recovering damages from employers if an injury was caused by the Negligence of a coworker. The principle that one who has, through her Negligence, endangered the safety of another can be held liable for injuries sustained by a third person who attempts to save the imperiled person from injury. This doctrine is based on the idea that danger invites rescue. It also provides that one who sees a person in imminent and serious peril as the result of the negligence of another cannot be charged with contributory negligence, as a Matter of Law, in risking his own life or serious injury in attempting a rescue, provided the attempt is not recklessly made.

The TORT doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, employer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between parent and child, Husband and Wife, owner of a vehicle and driver, and employer and employee. Ordinarily the independent negligence of one person is not imputable to another person.

ostensible agent n. a person who has been given the appearance of being an employee or acting (an
agent) for another (principal), which would make anyone dealing with the ostensible agent reasonably believe he/she was an employee or agent. This could include giving the ostensible agent stationery or forms of the company, letting him/her use the company truck, telephone, or desk in the company office. Businesses should be careful not to allow such situations in which an ostensible agent could bind the business on a contract or make the apparent employer responsible for damages for an accident, libel or assault by the "agent." (See: apparent authority, ostensible authority)

Borrowed Servant Doctrine

A principle under which the party usually liable for a persons actionse.g., a hospital which has employed a particular nurseis absolved of responsibility when that 'borrowed servant' is asked to do somethinge.g., by a surgeonwhich is outside of the bounds of hospital policy

Captain of the Ship Doctrine

An adaptation from the borrowed servant rules, as applied to an operating room, which arose in McConnell v .WilliamsPennsylvania, 1949holding the person in chargee.g., a surgeon responsible for all those under his supervision, regardless of whether the captain is directly responsible for an alleged error or act of alleged negligence, and despite the assistants positions as hospital employees