Claiming that recovery under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is an option, do you believe the bank is correct?

A) Yes, the bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B) Yes, the bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C) Yes, the bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
D) No, the bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of duty of care.
E) No, the bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.

Question

Hannah Marie Cartagena · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : D, Explanation :  The bank is incorrect because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when an accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence, and the instrumentality of the harm was in the exclusive control of the defendant. However, the key issue in this scenario is whether Teresa's negligence in rear-ending Devin's truck was the proximate cause of the bank's damages, not the mere existence of negligence. The doctrine does not automatically make Teresa liable for all resultant damages, especially in complex cases where causation must be closely examined.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions