Practice question
A falling instrumentality causes injury in circumstances that satisfy the ordinary-negligence inference, exclusive control and absence of plaintiff contribution. Direct explanation is not readily available to the claimant. The defendant offers credible evidence of a nonnegligent cause. The claimant says res ipsa prohibits considering it. Which is correct?
- The inference is always irrebuttable
- The defendant may never explain
- The doctrine abolishes the court’s fact-finding role
- The doctrine permits a qualified inference but does not bar rebuttal or make ultimate liability automatic
- A new tort is created solely by using the Latin words
Legal references
- Allarey v. Dela Cruz, G.R. 250919, main opinion; Spouses Nuñez v. Dr. Daz, G.R. 246489: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67913
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.