How can circumstantial evidence be used to prove negligence?

In the context of tort law, a plaintiff is generally required to prove a defendant’s negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. This burden can be met using circumstantial evidence, provided that the evidence is not overly speculative.1

Circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. While direct evidence might involve witnessing the negligent act itself, circumstantial evidence relies on surrounding facts from which the court can infer that negligence occurred.2

A specific legal doctrine that facilitates this process is res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the matter speaks for itself"). Under this doctrine, once a plaintiff establishes an apparent connection between their injury and the defendant’s apparent negligence, the burden may shift to the defendant to disprove that connection. This allows the court to infer negligence when the circumstances of an accident are such that it would not typically occur in the absence of a breach of the standard of care.1