For res ipsa loquitur to apply, which elements must the plaintiff prove?

• A. The accident would ordinarily occur even with due care, and the defendant had exclusive control.
• B. The accident would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality.
• C. The plaintiff was negligent.
• D. The instrumentality was outside the defendant's control.

Answer: (B)

Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to prove negligence by inference when the event is of a kind that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence and the instrumentality causing the injury is under the defendant’s exclusive control. The key elements are that the accident wouldn’t normally happen without negligence and that the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality. The statement that matches these ideas states that the accident would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence and that the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality. This aligns with the doctrine’s purpose: when those conditions are met, the fact-finder may infer negligence even without direct proof of the defendant’s specific act. The other statements misstate or omit essential aspects—either suggesting the accident could happen despite due care, placing control outside the defendant, or asserting the plaintiff’s own negligence—which do not support the inference.