A pedestrian was injured by a falling flower pot while walking on the sidewalk next to an apartment building. The pedestrian files a negligence lawsuit against the building owner but lacks direct evidence of how the pot fell. What principle could help the pedestrian prove their case?
Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine allowing a presumption of negligence when (1) the injury ordinarily does not occur without negligence, (2) the object causing the harm was under the defendant's exclusive control, and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to their own harm. In this scenario, a falling flower pot typically suggests negligence, it was likely under the exclusive control of the building owner, and no evidence suggests the pedestrian contributed to the accident. Other choices, like proximate cause, describe broader concepts in tort law but do not specifically address the absence of direct evidence.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does res ipsa loquitur mean?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can you give examples of cases that use res ipsa loquitur?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does res ipsa loquitur relate to negligence claims?