Legal Case Summary
Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Facts
The claimant was injured when they slipped on spilled yoghurt in the defendant’s store. The defendant adduced evidence that they regularly inspected and cleaned the floors and had policies requiring staff to deal with spillages as soon as they were detected. However, they gave no evidence on when that particular floor had last been inspected or cleaned. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence.
Issues
To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant breached their duty of care: that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.
Where it is not possible for the claimant to prove what the accident’s cause was, the court will presume breach 1) if the defendant was in control of the situation and 2) the accident was not one which normally occurs without carelessness. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The issue was whether these facts satisfied the requirement that the accident be one which does not normally occur without negligence.
Decision / Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that this was an appropriate case for res ipsa loquitur. The second requirement is made out whenever an event occurs which is unusual and (in the absence of a contrary explanation) is more likely to be due to negligence than anything else.
Here, the area was under the defendant’s control and while it was unknown how long the spill had been there, it was likely that it had been there long enough to be dealt with. As such, this accident was one which would not normally occur without negligence. The burden of proving that it had not been there that long was therefore on the defendant.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary accurately reflects the decision in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810 and the legal principles it established regarding res ipsa loquitur and the shifting of the evidential burden in slip-and-fall negligence cases. The case remains good law and is still regularly cited in occupiers’ liability and general negligence contexts.
Readers should note, however, that the broader application of res ipsa loquitur has been subject to judicial scrutiny over the years. In Ratcliffe v Plymouth and Torbay NHS Trust [1998] PIQR P170, the Court of Appeal confirmed that res ipsa loquitur is best understood as an evidential principle rather than a distinct rule of law, and that it does not reverse the legal burden of proof — it merely obliges the defendant to offer an explanation. This is consistent with the outcome in Ward v Tesco but is a useful clarification students should bear in mind. No subsequent statutory changes have materially altered the principles described in this article.
