What does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur imply about the burden of proof?

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence when the nature of the accident suggests that it would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. This legal concept is particularly useful in situations where direct evidence of the defendant's actions may be lacking.

Under res ipsa loquitur, the implication is that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff establishes the basic elements of the doctrine. The plaintiff must show that the injury was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant and that the event was of a type that ordinarily does not happen without negligence. Once this is established, it is reasonable for the court to conclude that the defendant was negligent unless they can provide evidence to the contrary.

Thus, the correct answer reflects the shift in the burden of proof to the defendant, requiring them to demonstrate that they were not negligent, rather than the plaintiff needing to prove negligence beyond the traditional requirements. This approach facilitates justice, especially in cases where direct evidence of the defendant’s actions or intentions may be difficult for the plaintiff to obtain.