Res ipsa loquitur is most likely to be applied when which of the following is true?

• A. The event would not normally occur without negligence.
• B. The defendant's explicit wrongdoing is evident.
• C. There is direct evidence of the exact negligent act.
• D. The plaintiff cannot prove any injury.

Answer: (A)

Res ipsa loquitur is used when the injury itself suggests negligence even without proving a specific negligent act. The essential idea is that the event would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, and the instrumentality causing the injury is under the defendant’s control, with the plaintiff not at fault. This combination allows an inference of negligence to be drawn from the occurrence alone, shifting the burden to the defendant to show there was no negligence.

That makes the statement that the event would not normally occur without negligence the best fit. It captures the key circumstance that lets the fact of the accident speak for negligence. The other options describe situations where either negligence is already explicit, or there is direct evidence of the exact act, or the injury itself isn’t even proven—none of which align with how res ipsa loquitur operates.