- Can the man successfully use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish a breach of duty by the building owner? Select one.
Answer: No, because the instrumentality of harm was a gun in the control of an unknown third party, not the owner.
When you encounter a res ipsa loquitur question, focus on the doctrine's three essential elements: (1) the accident wouldn't normally occur without negligence, (2) the instrumentality causing harm was in the defendant's exclusive control, and (3) the plaintiff didn't contribute to the accident. The second element—exclusive control—is often the decisive factor.
Answer D correctly identifies why res ipsa loquitur fails here. The instrumentality that caused the harm was the gun, which was in the possession and control of an unknown third party, not the building owner. Since the owner had no control over the weapon that fired the bullet, this essential element of res ipsa loquitur cannot be satisfied.
Answer A incorrectly assumes that owning the building creates the necessary "exclusive control" over the instrumentality. While the owner controls the building, the gun that caused the injury was controlled by someone else entirely. Answer B misunderstands how res ipsa loquitur works—it's not enough that an event "suggests" negligence; the specific control requirement must be met. Answer C reaches the right conclusion but for the wrong reason. The issue isn't whether this involves an intentional tort by a third party, but rather the lack of exclusive control over the instrumentality of harm.
Remember this key distinction: res ipsa loquitur requires control over the thing that directly caused the harm, not just control over the general premises where the harm occurred. Always identify what specific instrumentality caused the injury and who had control over it.
- The car wash owner moves for a directed verdict, arguing that res ipsa loquitur does not apply. What is the owner's strongest argument? Select one.
Answer: The driver's own actions in steering the car could have contributed to the harm.
The correct answer is C. A key element for applying res ipsa loquitur is that the plaintiff must not have been responsible for the event. The owner's strongest argument for defeating the doctrine is that the driver's potential negligence (misaligning the car) was a contributing cause of the damage. This challenges both the 'exclusive control' and the 'plaintiff's lack of contribution' elements. A is incorrect because the point of res ipsa is to apply when a plaintiff lacks such specific proof. B is incorrect because a disclaimer of liability for negligence may be against public policy and does not prevent the application of a rule of evidence like res ipsa. D is a plausible argument, but the possibility that the driver contributed to the harm is a more direct attack on the elements of the doctrine.
- The worker plans to rely on res ipsa loquitur. Which statement best describes the applicability of the doctrine in this case? Select one.
Answer: The doctrine can be applied to both defendants because they had joint and exclusive control over the overall operation.
The correct answer is B. When multiple defendants are involved in an activity and have joint control over the instrumentality causing the injury, res ipsa loquitur can apply to the group. Here, the lifting operation was under the joint control of the general contractor (crane operator) and the subcontractor (securing the load). The accident would not have occurred without the negligence of at least one of them. The doctrine allows the plaintiff to get the case to a jury, which can then determine liability based on the evidence presented by the defendants. A is incorrect because courts have extended the doctrine to situations of joint control. C and D are incorrect because they arbitrarily assign responsibility to one party when the facts explicitly state the cause is unknown and both had a role in the activity.
- At trial, what is the customer's most effective argument to establish a breach of duty by the store? Select one.
Answer: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of the store's negligence.
The correct answer is C. Res ipsa loquitur applies here because (1) a shelving unit collapsing does not ordinarily occur without negligence, (2) the shelving unit was in the exclusive control of the grocery store (installed and maintained by its staff), and (3) the customer did not contribute to the collapse. This allows an inference of negligence even without direct evidence of a specific negligent act. A is incorrect because strict liability generally does not apply to premises liability cases of this type. B is incorrect because the facts do not mention the violation of any specific statute or regulation, which is required for negligence per se. D is incorrect because vicarious liability for other customers' actions is not a recognized theory here, and it would not establish a breach of duty by the store itself.
- Which of the following is the clinic's best defense against the application of res ipsa loquitur? Select one.
Answer: The recent servicing and certification by the manufacturer suggest a latent defect, not negligent operation by the clinic.
Res ipsa loquitur allows plaintiffs to establish a presumption of negligence when three elements are met: the accident doesn't ordinarily happen without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing harm, and the plaintiff didn't contribute to the injury. However, defendants can rebut this presumption by showing alternative explanations for the incident.
The clinic's strongest defense is option D because it directly challenges the inference of negligent operation. If the machine had a latent defect from manufacturing or the recent servicing, this provides an alternative explanation for the malfunction that doesn't involve the clinic's negligence. The fact that the manufacturer certified the machine as working correctly the day before, yet it still malfunctioned, suggests the problem originated from the manufacturer's defective product or improper servicing, not the clinic's operation.
Option A fails because assumption of risk doesn't defeat res ipsa loquitur—it's a separate affirmative defense. Option B is incorrect because complexity alone doesn't prevent res ipsa application; radiation overdoses are the type of accidents that typically don't happen without negligence, regardless of machine complexity. Option C misunderstands vicarious liability—clinics are generally liable for their employees' negligent acts performed within the scope of employment, even licensed professionals.
When facing res ipsa loquitur questions, look for defenses that provide alternative explanations for the incident rather than just general liability defenses. The key is showing the accident could have occurred without the defendant's negligence.
- If the man relies on res ipsa loquitur, what is the effect of the store's argument about a hidden defect? Select one.
Answer: It creates a question of fact for the jury as to whether the store's negligence is the more probable cause of the injury.
The correct answer is C. The store's argument introduces a plausible alternative cause for the accident that does not involve its own negligence. When a defendant offers evidence to rebut the inference of negligence created by res ipsa loquitur, it does not automatically defeat the plaintiff's case. Instead, it creates a factual dispute for the jury to resolve. The jury must weigh the inference of negligent assembly against the possibility of a hidden defect to determine if it is more likely than not that the store was negligent. A is incorrect because the store had exclusive control of the assembly, which is the alleged negligent act. The possibility of another cause doesn't negate control, but rather provides an alternative explanation. B is incorrect because the claim is pleaded in negligence, not strict liability. D is incorrect as there is no procedural rule that would mandate joining the manufacturer in this negligence action.
- Which of the following is the woman's strongest argument that her claim should survive the owner's motion for summary judgment? Select one.
Answer: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because elevators do not normally stop between floors without negligence.
The correct answer is B. An elevator getting stuck between floors is the type of event that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence in maintenance or operation. The building owner has exclusive control over the elevator. The passenger did nothing to cause the malfunction. Thus, all elements of res ipsa loquitur are present, creating an inference of negligence sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. The maintenance records are evidence for the jury to consider but do not defeat the doctrine's application at this stage. A is incorrect; strict liability does not apply. C is incorrect as business records are a common exception to the hearsay rule. D discusses non-delegable duty, which would be relevant to holding the owner liable for the maintenance company's negligence, but res ipsa is the doctrine that allows the inference of negligence in the first place.
- Is the pedestrian likely to succeed in using res ipsa loquitur to get her claim to a jury? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because windows in well-maintained buildings do not typically fall out, even in heavy winds, absent some negligence in their maintenance.
The correct answer is A. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply here. The core of the argument is that a properly installed and maintained window should be able to withstand foreseeable weather events, including heavy windstorms. Therefore, the event itself suggests negligence. The building owner has a non-delegable duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition, including the exterior. B is incorrect; the owner's liability is based on negligence, not strict liability. C is incorrect because a foreseeable windstorm is not a superseding cause that would break the chain of causation. D is incorrect because a property owner's duty to maintain the premises is generally non-delegable, meaning the owner remains liable for the negligence of an independent contractor like a management company and is deemed to be in control for liability purposes.
- The woman's case is based on res ipsa loquitur. How does the salon's argument about an allergic reaction affect the woman's claim? Select one.
Answer: It provides a plausible, non-negligent explanation for the injury, which a jury must weigh against the inference of negligence.
When you encounter a res ipsa loquitur question, remember that this doctrine allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence when the injury wouldn't normally occur without someone's negligence. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing a non-negligent cause.
The salon's allergic reaction argument provides exactly this type of rebuttal evidence. By claiming the woman had an unforeseeable allergic reaction to properly mixed chemicals, the salon offers an alternative explanation for her injuries that doesn't involve negligence. This creates a factual dispute for the jury to resolve - they must weigh the res ipsa inference of negligence against the salon's non-negligent explanation. Answer D correctly captures this dynamic.
Answer A is wrong because unforeseeable allergic reactions aren't automatically complete defenses to negligence - they're just evidence that may rebut negligence depending on the circumstances. Answer B incorrectly assumes strict liability applies to salon services; most jurisdictions apply negligence standards to professional services like hair styling. Answer C misunderstands the burden of proof - the salon's argument doesn't shift the burden to the woman to prove she has no allergies; rather, it's the salon's burden to prove their alternative explanation.
Study tip: In res ipsa loquitur questions, always ask whether the defendant has offered a plausible, non-negligent explanation for the incident. If so, that explanation doesn't automatically defeat the claim but creates a jury question about what actually caused the injury.
- You intend to argue negligence based on res ipsa loquitur. Which of the following presents the greatest challenge to applying the doctrine against the manufacturer? Select one.
Answer: The fact that the fire extinguisher was out of the manufacturer's physical control for a significant time before the explosion.
The correct answer is B. The 'exclusive control' element is the most difficult to establish against a manufacturer when the product has passed through a long chain of distribution. The manufacturer will argue that the defect or damage causing the explosion could have been introduced by the distributor, the building owner, or the installer. To succeed with res ipsa, the plaintiff would need to show that the condition of the extinguisher did not change after leaving the manufacturer's control (e.g., by showing it was in a sealed container), which is difficult. A is incorrect; a spontaneous explosion strongly suggests negligence, so this fact helps the plaintiff. C is incorrect as privity of contract is not required for a negligence claim. D is incorrect; a plaintiff can plead alternative theories of liability.
- If the bridge owner asserts a negligence claim against the barge owner based on res ipsa loquitur, will it likely succeed? Select one.
Answer: No, because the barge was a passive instrument under the exclusive control of the tugboat owner.
Res ipsa loquitur allows a negligence inference when an accident ordinarily wouldn't occur without negligence and the instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control. The key element here is control—who had the ability to prevent the harm?
The correct answer is D because the barge was merely a passive instrument under the tugboat's exclusive control. The barge owner had no personnel aboard and no ability to direct the barge's movement. Since the tugboat crew controlled steering, speed, and navigation, only they could have prevented the collision through reasonable care. Without control over the instrumentality that caused harm, res ipsa loquitur cannot apply against the barge owner.
Answer A incorrectly focuses on physical contact alone. While the barge did strike the bridge, res ipsa requires more than just being the object that caused damage—the defendant must have had control over that object.
Answer B mischaracterizes the relationship. A joint enterprise requires a common purpose and mutual right of control. Here, the barge owner was simply a customer receiving tugboat services, not a partner with control rights over navigation.
Answer C overstates the effect of the mechanical failure claim. While this defense might help the tugboat owner, it doesn't automatically rebut all negligence inferences. More importantly, this doesn't address why res ipsa fails against the barge owner specifically.
Remember: For res ipsa loquitur, always identify who had actual control over the instrumentality that caused harm. The doctrine cannot apply against parties who lacked the ability to prevent the accident through reasonable care.
- If the driver relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, is he likely to succeed in opposing the mechanic's motion for a directed verdict? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because a wheel does not normally fall off a car unless the lug nuts were negligently secured.
The correct answer is A. This is a classic res ipsa loquitur scenario. A wheel does not ordinarily detach from a vehicle in the absence of negligence by the person who last attached it. While the car was not in the mechanic's physical control at the time of the accident, the 'exclusive control' element is interpreted to mean that the defendant must be responsible for the negligence, if any. The relevant time of control was when the mechanic performed the work. The driver can establish that the condition of the instrumentality (the wheel) did not change after it left the defendant's control. D is incorrect because the mere suggestion of an alternative cause by the defendant does not defeat res ipsa at the directed verdict stage; it creates a question of fact for the jury to decide. B is incorrect because mechanics are not subject to strict liability for services. C misinterprets the exclusive control requirement by focusing only on the moment of the accident.
- How should the court rule on the airline's motion for summary judgment? Select one.
Answer: Deny the motion, because a jury could find the airline was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The correct answer is C. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable. An interior panel of an airplane does not ordinarily fall on a passenger in the absence of negligence. The aircraft and its components are within the exclusive control of the airline. The passenger did not contribute to the event. Therefore, the doctrine creates a permissible inference of negligence, which is sufficient for the plaintiff to survive a motion for summary judgment and have the case decided by a jury. A is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur exists precisely for situations where a plaintiff cannot point to a specific negligent act. B is incorrect because while turbulence may be an act of God, the failure of the panel is the direct cause of injury, and the airline has a duty to ensure its cabin is secure enough to withstand foreseeable turbulence. D is incorrect because while common carriers owe a very high duty of care, they are not strictly liable; negligence must still be proven.
- Which of the following facts, if established by the electrician, would be most effective in defeating the homeowner's reliance on res ipsa loquitur? Select one.
Answer: The home was 50 years old and had its original, un-updated electrical wiring system.
The correct answer is B. To rely on res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must show the instrumentality causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control. By introducing evidence of faulty household wiring, the electrician can argue that the cause of the short-circuit might have been something outside his control, thus negating the 'exclusive control' element and suggesting an alternative cause for which he is not responsible. A is evidence that goes to the standard of care, but it doesn't defeat the application of res ipsa itself; rather, it's evidence the jury would weigh against the inference of negligence. C is a weak argument unless changing a bulb could plausibly cause a short circuit and the fixture to fall, which is unlikely. D is also weak; the fact that the item was an antique doesn't negate the inference that negligent work caused it to fail, it may in fact call for a higher degree of care.
- On which of the following grounds could the landlord most successfully argue that res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the claim against the landlord? Select one.
Answer: The law firm tenant, not the landlord, had exclusive control of the balcony and the pot.
The correct answer is C. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur requires that the instrumentality causing the harm be in the defendant's exclusive control. Here, the balcony and the pot on it were part of the premises leased to the law firm. The landlord could plausibly argue that it did not have exclusive control over the pot, and therefore the doctrine cannot be used to infer the landlord's negligence. A is incorrect because there is no basis to find contributory negligence. B is incorrect because a pot falling from a balcony is a classic example of an event that ordinarily does not happen without negligence. D is incorrect because a landlord owes a duty of care to pedestrians on adjacent public sidewalks, so a lack of contractual privity is irrelevant.
- What is the primary procedural effect if the court agrees to give the jury a res ipsa loquitur instruction? Select one.
Answer: The patient is permitted to get to the jury without direct evidence of the surgeon's negligence.
The correct answer is C. The main effect of res ipsa loquitur is to allow a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of negligence without direct evidence of the defendant's specific conduct, thereby avoiding a directed verdict (or judgment as a matter of law) and allowing the case to be decided by the jury. The jury may, but is not required to, infer negligence. A is incorrect because, in most jurisdictions, res ipsa does not shift the ultimate burden of proof; it remains with the plaintiff. D is incorrect because it creates a permissible inference, not a mandatory presumption, and the standard for rebuttal is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. B is incorrect because the jury is free to reject the inference of negligence, even if the elements of res ipsa are established.
- If the patient invokes res ipsa loquitur, what is the likely result? Select one.
Answer: The claim will proceed against all defendants, and the burden of producing evidence to explain the injury will shift to them.
The correct answer is B. This fact pattern is analogous to the famous case of Ybarra v. Spangard. In situations involving an unconscious patient and multiple medical personnel, courts often relax the 'exclusive control' requirement. They apply res ipsa loquitur against all defendants who had control over the patient's body or the instrumentalities that might have caused the injury. This effectively shifts the burden of coming forward with evidence to the defendants, who are in a better position to explain what happened. A is incorrect because of this judicial modification of the exclusive control element in this specific context. C is plausible, but the doctrine can be applied to the individual doctors as well. D is a potential defense, but a burn on an unrelated part of the body is not a typical risk and strongly suggests negligence, making res ipsa applicable.
- Which of the following must the tenant establish for res ipsa loquitur to apply? Select one.
Answer: That this type of ceiling collapse does not ordinarily happen unless someone was negligent.
This question tests your understanding of res ipsa loquitur, a tort doctrine that allows negligence to be inferred from circumstantial evidence when direct proof of negligence is unavailable. The Latin phrase means "the thing speaks for itself."
For res ipsa loquitur to apply, you must establish three elements: (1) the accident is of a type that ordinarily doesn't occur without negligence, (2) the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing harm, and (3) the plaintiff didn't contribute to the accident. Here, the tenant has already established exclusive control (the landlord controls plumbing/structure) and lacks contributory fault.
Answer A correctly identifies the first essential element. The tenant must prove that ceiling collapses don't normally happen without someone's negligence. This makes common sense—properly maintained ceilings shouldn't spontaneously collapse, so when they do, negligence can reasonably be inferred.
Answer B is wrong because res ipsa loquitur doesn't require proving specific code violations. That would be negligence per se, a different theory entirely.
Answer C is incorrect because notice requirements relate to premises liability claims, not res ipsa loquitur. In fact, res ipsa loquitur is specifically useful when you can't prove the defendant knew about the dangerous condition.
Answer D is wrong because res ipsa loquitur doesn't require evidence of similar past incidents. The doctrine applies to individual accidents that speak for themselves.
Remember: res ipsa loquitur is your tool when you lack direct evidence of negligence but can show the accident type normally requires negligence to occur. Focus on whether the event ordinarily happens without negligent conduct.
- Assuming the court allows the patron to proceed on a theory of res ipsa loquitur, which of the following is true? Select one.
Answer: The patron will win if the jury believes that the chair's collapse was more likely than not due to the restaurant's negligence.
The correct answer is B. Res ipsa loquitur creates a permissible inference of negligence, which the jury is free to accept or reject. If the jury is persuaded by the circumstantial evidence that the restaurant's negligence is the most probable explanation for the chair's failure, the patron will prevail. It does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the defendant. A is incorrect because the defendant does not have to prove the specific cause; it only needs to produce enough evidence to rebut the inference of negligence. C is incorrect because the matter—whether a restaurant chair should collapse—is within the common knowledge of a lay jury, and expert testimony is not typically required for res ipsa to apply in such a case. D is incorrect because the evidence of inspections is something for the jury to weigh against the inference of negligence; it does not defeat the doctrine as a matter of law.
- If the consumer relies on res ipsa loquitur, what is his strongest argument to satisfy the 'exclusive control' requirement against the bottling company? Select one.
Answer: The supermarket acted only as a conduit, and the bottle remained in a sealed condition until the consumer opened it.
Res ipsa loquitur allows you to infer negligence when an accident wouldn't normally occur without someone's negligence. One key requirement is that the instrumentality causing harm must have been under the "exclusive control" of the defendant when the negligent act likely occurred.
The strongest argument for exclusive control focuses on the bottle's condition from manufacturing through purchase. Answer A correctly identifies that the supermarket merely acted as a conduit—it didn't alter, inspect, or manipulate the bottle. The sealed bottle remained exactly as the bottling company created it until the consumer opened it. This maintains the chain of exclusive control from the point where negligence likely occurred (during bottling) until the accident.
Answer B incorrectly conflates expertise with control. While the bottling company has specialized knowledge, exclusive control refers to physical custody and ability to affect the product's condition, not technical expertise.
Answer C shifts to strict liability theory, which is irrelevant to res ipsa loquitur analysis. The question specifically asks about satisfying res ipsa's exclusive control element, not about alternative liability theories.
Answer D misunderstands what "control" means in this context. Theoretical ability to recall products doesn't constitute the type of exclusive control res ipsa requires. Control must relate to the actual handling and condition of the specific product when the alleged negligence occurred.
Remember: For res ipsa's exclusive control element, focus on who had actual physical control over the instrumentality during the time period when negligence likely occurred, not who has expertise or theoretical oversight powers.
