Subawickrema v. Samaranayake and Another – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 142

In the case between Subawickrema (plaintiff-appellant) and Samaranayake and Another (defendant-respondents), the court examined whether a lorry accident that damaged the plaintiff’s retail shop established negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court determined that the accident itself invoked a presumption of negligence, and to rebut this, the explanation provided by the defense must be reasoned and corroborated by substantial evidence. Mere hypothetical explanations or conjecture did not suffice. Reliance was placed on principles from prior case law, notably Wije Bus Co. Ltd. v. Soysa, which emphasized the evidentiary standards required to overcome the presumption of negligence. The appeal court set aside the district court’s ruling, which had characterized the event as