Which statement is a requirement for applying res ipsa loquitur?

• A. The event ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence, and the defendant had control of the instrumentality.
• B. There must be direct evidence of negligence.
• C. There must be privity of contract between the parties.
• D. The plaintiff must prove the defendant's intent.

Answer: (A)

The concept hinges on using res ipsa loquitur when an injury is the kind that ordinarily wouldn’t occur without negligence, and the thing that caused the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control. The statement that fits this is that the event ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence and the defendant had control of the instrumentality. This combination lets the court infer negligence even without direct proof of the exact act, shifting some responsibility to the defendant to explain the harm.

Direct evidence of negligence isn’t required, privity of contract isn’t needed in tort, and proving intent isn’t necessary for negligence—res ipsa focuses on the occurrence of the accident and the defendant’s control, not on intent or contractual relationships.