In Chapman the claimant produced evidence showing that tyre marks had been left on the road. The defendant did not call evidence in rebuttal.

Salmon L.J. said:

“…. as the law now stood there was no obligation on the defendant at the end of the widow’s case to give evidence. However, if he chose not to do so, he could not complain if, on a very narrow balance of probability, the evidence justified the court in drawing the inference of negligence against him … Where the defendant, quite legitimately, in a case in which there was nothing but accident mathematics, chose not to give evidence to the contrary, he could not complain.”

This case was reviewed in Wisniewski.