What must be shown to apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur?

The principle of res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to prove negligence in certain situations where direct evidence is lacking, but the nature of the accident implies negligence occurred. To successfully invoke this principle, it must be demonstrated that the injury or harm typically would not happen without negligence, thereby allowing the jury to infer that negligence is the most likely cause.

This principle is particularly useful in circumstances where the injured party lacks direct evidence of exactly how the defendant’s conduct caused the harm. An example of res ipsa loquitur in action might be a scenario involving a surgical instrument left inside a patient's body after surgery. Such an event typically indicates a significant breach of the standard care expected in a medical environment, leading to an inference of negligence without needing explicit proof of the specific negligent action.

The other options do not fulfill the essential requirements for applying res ipsa loquitur. For instance, direct evidence of negligence would negate the need for this doctrine since it relies on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, if the plaintiff were responsible for the incident, that would undermine the negligence claim altogether. Lastly, an admission of fault from the defendant is unnecessary and irrelevant in the context of res ipsa loquitur since the doctrine is predicated on the circumstantial evidence that can suggest negligence by