What is one aspect that courts consider when applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish negligence through circumstantial evidence, relying on the principle that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence when the event would not normally happen without it.

When applying this doctrine, courts consider whether the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant. Hence, option D, suggesting that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury, aligns with a core consideration of this standard, which is that the circumstances must indicate that the defendant was responsible for the harm, suggesting that the plaintiff's own actions did not play a part in causing the injury.

In the context of res ipsa loquitur, the fact that a plaintiff did not contribute to the accident strengthens their case. It illustrates that the incident was out of the plaintiff's control and infers that the defendant's negligent behavior is what led to the injury. As a result, this aspect reinforces the presumption of negligence against the party who had control over the situation leading to the harm.