Which statement describes the Res ipsa loquitur doctrine in tort?

• A. The harm is not usually the type of harm seen in negligence.
• B. The negligence is attributable to the plaintiff.
• C. The negligence is attributable to the defendant and within the defendant's exclusive control.
• D. The plaintiff must prove actual damages.

Answer: (C)

Res ipsa loquitur lets negligence be inferred from the event itself when the harm would not ordinarily occur without negligence and the instrumentality causing the harm is under the defendant’s exclusive control. The statement that best matches this idea says that the negligence is attributable to the defendant and within the defendant’s exclusive control. This captures the two key elements: the defendant’s control over the instrumentality and the inference of negligence from the occurrence of the accident.

The other descriptions don’t fit as well. Saying the harm is not usually the type of harm seen in negligence misstates how res ipsa works, which is about events that ordinarily signal negligence. Saying negligence is attributable to the plaintiff contradicts the doctrine’s purpose. Requiring proof of actual damages is not the core focus of res ipsa, though damages must be proven to recover.