Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when which conditions are met?

• A. The accident occurs only when someone is negligent and the defendant had control of the instrumentality.
• B. The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, and the defendant had control of the instrumentality.
• C. The plaintiff must prove direct evidence of negligence.
• D. The accident occurred, but control is irrelevant.

Answer: (B)

Res ipsa loquitur lets you infer negligence from the very occurrence of the injury when two things are true: the kind of accident ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, and the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the injury. This rule allows the jury to draw an inference of negligence even without direct proof of a negligent act, shifting the burden to the defendant to explain how the accident happened or to provide evidence that would negate the inference.

Why this option is correct: it captures both essential elements—the type of accident that ordinarily signals negligence, and the defendant’s control of the instrumentality. Together, these conditions justify an inference of negligence.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: requiring that the accident occur only if someone is negligent is too strong; res ipsa does not demand exclusivity of negligence but does require a strong inference based on the accident’s nature. Requiring direct evidence of negligence is opposite to res ipsa, which serves precisely when direct proof is unavailable. Saying control is irrelevant ignores the fundamental need to connect the instrumentality to the defendant’s responsibility.