This was a road traffic case. The defendant had chosen to call no evidence. The court therefore had only the claimant’s evidence before it.
Brooke L.J. said,
It appears to me that the suggestions put forward in this passage of cross-examination do not amount to a plausible explanation, consistent with an absence of negligence on the defendant’s part, sufficient to rebut a prima facie inference of negligence by the defendant, and a plausible explanation is what the law requires if a defendant is to escape liability in such circumstances…
Brooke L.J was to return to this topic in Ratcliffe.
See also other posts under this tag.