What is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and when does it apply?

Study for the MBE Critical Pass Test. Enhance your knowledge with flashcards and multiple choice questions. Prepare thoroughly for your exam with detailed hints and explanations.

Multiple Choice

What is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and when does it apply?

Res ipsa loquitur lets the fact-finder infer negligence from the very occurrence of an accident, when the event would not ordinarily happen without negligence and the defendant controlled the instrumentality that caused the injury. Think of a type of accident that’s so unlikely to occur without someone’s fault, and where the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant’s exclusive control. If those conditions are met, the plaintiff doesn’t need direct proof of a negligent act; the circumstance itself supports an inference of negligence, and the defendant then bears the burden to show a non-negligent explanation or to rebut the inference. In practice, this doctrine applies when three things line up: the event is of a kind that ordinarily wouldn’t occur absent negligence, the instrumentality or cause is under the defendant’s exclusive control, and there isn’t another reasonable explanation for the accident. It doesn’t require the negligence to be intentional, and it isn’t about proving a specific negligent act with direct evidence. If the defendant can offer a credible non-negligent explanation, the inference may be defeated.

Res ipsa loquitur lets the fact-finder infer negligence from the very occurrence of an accident, when the event would not ordinarily happen without negligence and the defendant controlled the instrumentality that caused the injury. Think of a type of accident that’s so unlikely to occur without someone’s fault, and where the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant’s exclusive control. If those conditions are met, the plaintiff doesn’t need direct proof of a negligent act; the circumstance itself supports an inference of negligence, and the defendant then bears the burden to show a non-negligent explanation or to rebut the inference.

In practice, this doctrine applies when three things line up: the event is of a kind that ordinarily wouldn’t occur absent negligence, the instrumentality or cause is under the defendant’s exclusive control, and there isn’t another reasonable explanation for the accident. It doesn’t require the negligence to be intentional, and it isn’t about proving a specific negligent act with direct evidence. If the defendant can offer a credible non-negligent explanation, the inference may be defeated.

More practice questions