Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Res Ipsa

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Res IpsaQuestion 1 of 20

A customer was shopping in a large grocery store. As the customer reached for a can of soup on a high shelf, the entire shelving unit, which was packed with canned goods, detached from the wall and collapsed, severely injuring the customer. An investigation revealed that the shelving unit was installed by the store's own maintenance staff a year prior. The customer has no evidence of what specific act caused the shelf to fall but has sued the grocery store for negligence.

At trial, what is the customer's most effective argument to establish a breach of duty by the store? Select one.

The store is strictly liable for injuries caused by fixtures on its premises.

The store committed negligence per se by violating workplace safety regulations for shelving.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of the store's negligence.

The store is vicariously liable for the actions of the customers who may have weakened the shelf.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Res Ipsa

Practice Res Ipsa in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Res Ipsa, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

At trial, what is the customer's most effective argument to establish a breach of duty by the store? Select one.

The store is strictly liable for injuries caused by fixtures on its premises.
The store committed negligence per se by violating workplace safety regulations for shelving.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of the store's negligence. (correct answer)
The store is vicariously liable for the actions of the customers who may have weakened the shelf.

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A man was a passenger on a commercial airline flight. During the flight, the plane experienced severe turbulence, and a heavy piece of the overhead compartment's interior paneling fell and struck the man on the head, causing a concussion. The airline conducts regular, federally mandated maintenance checks on its aircraft, including the cabin interiors. The man sued the airline for negligence. At the close of discovery, the airline moves for summary judgment, arguing the man has produced no specific evidence of what caused the panel to fall.

How should the court rule on the airline's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the man has failed to produce evidence of a specific negligent act by the airline.
Grant the motion, because an airline is not liable for injuries caused by turbulence, which is an act of God.
Deny the motion, because a jury could find the airline was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because common carriers are held to a standard of strict liability for passenger injuries.

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A patient was unconscious while undergoing a complex heart surgery involving a surgeon, an anesthesiologist, and several nurses, all employed by a hospital. Following the surgery, the patient discovered a severe burn on his leg, in an area far from the surgical site. The patient cannot determine which specific person or instrument caused the burn. He sues the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital.

If the patient invokes res ipsa loquitur, what is the likely result? Select one.

The claim will fail because the patient cannot identify which defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the burn.
The claim will proceed against all defendants, and the burden of producing evidence to explain the injury will shift to them. (correct answer)
The claim will proceed only against the hospital under a theory of respondeat superior, as it is responsible for all its employees.
The claim will fail because a burn is a known risk of certain electrical surgical instruments, so it can occur without negligence.

Explanation: 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.

Question 4

An outpatient clinic uses a specialized radiation machine for cancer treatment. During a session, a patient was exposed to a much higher dose of radiation than prescribed, causing severe burns. The machine is complex and was exclusively operated by a licensed technician employed by the clinic. The clinic's records show the machine was serviced by its manufacturer the day before and certified as working correctly. The patient sued the clinic, relying on res ipsa loquitur.

Which of the following is the clinic's best defense against the application of res ipsa loquitur? Select one.

The patient assumed the risk of burns, which is a known side effect of radiation therapy.
The complexity of the machine makes it impossible for a lay jury to conclude that such an accident bespeaks negligence.
The technician was a licensed professional, and the clinic is not liable for the professional negligence of its employees.
The recent servicing and certification by the manufacturer suggest a latent defect, not negligent operation by the clinic. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 5

A homeowner hired an electrician to rewire an antique chandelier in her dining room. Two days after the electrician completed the work, the homeowner turned on the chandelier, and it immediately short-circuited, fell from the ceiling, and was destroyed. The homeowner sued the electrician for negligence to recover the value of the chandelier. The electrician testified that he tested the chandelier before leaving and it worked fine, and suggests that a power surge or a fault in the home's wiring could have caused the incident.

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.

The electrician complied with all professional customs and standards when performing the work.
The home was 50 years old and had its original, un-updated electrical wiring system. (correct answer)
The homeowner had replaced a lightbulb in the chandelier after the electrician left.
The chandelier was an antique and known to be temperamental.

Explanation: 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.

Question 6

A patron at a restaurant was injured when the wooden chair she was sitting on suddenly broke, causing her to fall. The restaurant manager stated that all chairs are inspected for stability by staff at the beginning of each day. The patron sued the restaurant for negligence and plans to rely on res ipsa loquitur.

Assuming the court allows the patron to proceed on a theory of res ipsa loquitur, which of the following is true? Select one.

The restaurant will be found liable unless it can prove what caused the chair to break.
The patron will win if the jury believes that the chair's collapse was more likely than not due to the restaurant's negligence. (correct answer)
The patron must still present expert testimony on the proper methods for inspecting wooden chairs.
The restaurant's evidence of daily inspections will prevent the case from going to the jury.

Explanation: 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.

Question 7

A man was hit by a stray bullet while attending an outdoor concert. The bullet was fired from a nearby apartment building, but it is unknown which apartment it came from or who fired the gun. The man sued the owner of the apartment building for negligence, arguing that the owner failed to provide adequate security to prevent such incidents.

Can the man successfully use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish a breach of duty by the building owner? Select one.

Yes, because the building was in the owner's exclusive control, and the owner has a duty to ensure the safety of nearby persons.
Yes, because a gunshot from an apartment building is the type of event that suggests negligent security.
No, because the man's claim is for an intentional tort by a third party, for which the owner cannot be held liable.
No, because the instrumentality of harm was a gun in the control of an unknown third party, not the owner. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 8

A woman was having her hair colored at a salon. The stylist mixed the chemicals and applied them to the woman's hair. Soon after, the woman felt a burning sensation and ultimately suffered chemical burns on her scalp and significant hair loss. The woman sued the salon. The salon argues that the woman must have had a rare, unforeseeable allergic reaction to standard, properly mixed hair dye.

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.

It will defeat the claim, because an unforeseeable allergic reaction is a complete defense to negligence.
It will be disregarded, because the salon is strictly liable for injuries from the chemicals it uses.
It shifts the burden of proof to the woman to prove that she has no known allergies to hair dye.
It provides a plausible, non-negligent explanation for the injury, which a jury must weigh against the inference of negligence. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 9

A barge being pushed by a tugboat in a harbor collided with a bridge pier. The barge owner had no personnel on the barge, which was under the full control of the tugboat and its crew. The bridge owner sued both the tugboat owner and the barge owner for damages to the pier. The tugboat owner claims a sudden, un-foreseeable mechanical failure in the tugboat's steering caused the collision.

If the bridge owner asserts a negligence claim against the barge owner based on res ipsa loquitur, will it likely succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the barge was the instrumentality that physically struck and damaged the bridge.
Yes, because the barge owner and tugboat owner were engaged in a joint enterprise.
No, because the tugboat owner's claim of mechanical failure automatically rebuts any inference of negligence.
No, because the barge was a passive instrument under the exclusive control of the tugboat owner. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 10

How should the court rule on the airline's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the man has failed to produce evidence of a specific negligent act by the airline.
Grant the motion, because an airline is not liable for injuries caused by turbulence, which is an act of God.
Deny the motion, because a jury could find the airline was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because common carriers are held to a standard of strict liability for passenger injuries.

Question 11

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.

The electrician complied with all professional customs and standards when performing the work.
The home was 50 years old and had its original, un-updated electrical wiring system. (correct answer)
The homeowner had replaced a lightbulb in the chandelier after the electrician left.
The chandelier was an antique and known to be temperamental.

Question 12

If the patient invokes res ipsa loquitur, what is the likely result? Select one.

The claim will fail because the patient cannot identify which defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the burn.
The claim will proceed against all defendants, and the burden of producing evidence to explain the injury will shift to them. (correct answer)
The claim will proceed only against the hospital under a theory of respondeat superior, as it is responsible for all its employees.
The claim will fail because a burn is a known risk of certain electrical surgical instruments, so it can occur without negligence.

Question 13

A driver's car was damaged in an automated car wash. The driver claims that a large brush inside the car wash malfunctioned and struck the side of his car. The car wash owner asserts that the damage was pre-existing or was caused by the driver's failure to properly align his vehicle upon entering the car wash tunnel. The driver has no direct evidence of a malfunction and sues the car wash owner for negligence.

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.

The driver cannot prove which specific part of the automated system failed.
The car wash had posted a sign disclaiming liability for any damage to vehicles.
The driver's own actions in steering the car could have contributed to the harm. (correct answer)
Damage to cars can sometimes occur in a car wash even when the equipment is properly maintained.

Explanation: 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.

Question 14

A company that bottles soda sells its products in glass bottles to distributors. A consumer bought a bottle of the company's soda from a local supermarket. When the consumer tried to open the bottle at home, it exploded in his hand, causing deep cuts. The consumer sued the bottling company for negligence. There is no evidence of mishandling by the supermarket or the consumer.

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.

The supermarket acted only as a conduit, and the bottle remained in a sealed condition until the consumer opened it. (correct answer)
The bottling company is the only entity with expertise in the bottling process and pressure requirements.
The bottling company is strictly liable as the manufacturer of a product placed into the stream of commerce.
The bottling company had constructive control over the bottle because it could have recalled the product if a defect were known.

Explanation: 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.

Question 15

A tenant in an apartment building was injured when a portion of the ceiling in his bathroom collapsed. The tenant sued the landlord for negligence. The landlord defends by stating that it had no notice of any leaks or cracks in the ceiling before the collapse. The tenant has no direct evidence of what caused the collapse but argues that the landlord had exclusive control over the building's plumbing and structural elements.

Which of the following must the tenant establish for res ipsa loquitur to apply? Select one.

That this type of ceiling collapse does not ordinarily happen unless someone was negligent. (correct answer)
That the landlord violated a specific provision of the local housing code.
That the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
That other tenants in the building had previously experienced similar problems.

Explanation: 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.

Question 16

Which of the following is the clinic's best defense against the application of res ipsa loquitur? Select one.

The patient assumed the risk of burns, which is a known side effect of radiation therapy.
The complexity of the machine makes it impossible for a lay jury to conclude that such an accident bespeaks negligence.
The technician was a licensed professional, and the clinic is not liable for the professional negligence of its employees.
The recent servicing and certification by the manufacturer suggest a latent defect, not negligent operation by the clinic. (correct answer)

Question 17

Assuming the court allows the patron to proceed on a theory of res ipsa loquitur, which of the following is true? Select one.

The restaurant will be found liable unless it can prove what caused the chair to break.
The patron will win if the jury believes that the chair's collapse was more likely than not due to the restaurant's negligence. (correct answer)
The patron must still present expert testimony on the proper methods for inspecting wooden chairs.
The restaurant's evidence of daily inspections will prevent the case from going to the jury.

Question 18

If the bridge owner asserts a negligence claim against the barge owner based on res ipsa loquitur, will it likely succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the barge was the instrumentality that physically struck and damaged the bridge.
Yes, because the barge owner and tugboat owner were engaged in a joint enterprise.
No, because the tugboat owner's claim of mechanical failure automatically rebuts any inference of negligence.
No, because the barge was a passive instrument under the exclusive control of the tugboat owner. (correct answer)

Question 19

A construction worker was injured when a bundle of steel beams being lifted by a crane fell and struck him. The crane was operated by an employee of a general contractor. The steel beams were secured by employees of a subcontractor. The worker sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor, but discovery has not revealed whether the accident was caused by negligent operation of the crane or by negligent securing of the beams.

The worker plans to rely on res ipsa loquitur. Which statement best describes the applicability of the doctrine in this case? Select one.

The doctrine is inapplicable because two different parties had partial control over the instrumentalities involved.
The doctrine can be applied to both defendants because they had joint and exclusive control over the overall operation. (correct answer)
The doctrine applies only to the general contractor because operating the crane is an inherently dangerous activity.
The doctrine applies only to the subcontractor because properly securing the load was the final act before the accident.

Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A man purchased a new chair from a furniture store. The chair came fully assembled. Two weeks later, the man was sitting in the chair when it suddenly collapsed, causing him to fall and break his arm. The man sued the furniture store, which assembled the chair in-house, for negligence. The store argues that the collapse could have been caused by a hidden defect in the wood from the original manufacturer, not by its assembly.

If the man relies on res ipsa loquitur, what is the effect of the store's argument about a hidden defect? Select one.

It defeats the man's claim because it shows the store did not have exclusive control over the chair's condition.
It is irrelevant because the store, as a commercial seller, is strictly liable for any defects in the product.
It creates a question of fact for the jury as to whether the store's negligence is the more probable cause of the injury. (correct answer)
It requires the man to join the original manufacturer as a necessary party to the lawsuit.

Explanation: 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.