Doctrine of common knowledge—the situation that is so obviously negligent that no expert witnesses need to be called—is known as which term?

Doctrine of common knowledge—the situation that is so obviously negligent that no expert witnesses need to be called—is known as which term?

• A. Res ipsa loquitur
• B. Respondeat superior
• C. Negligence per se
• D. Battery

Answer: (A)

Res ipsa loquitur describes a situation where the incident itself shows negligence, so expert testimony on breach isn’t needed. It applies when the injury wouldn’t ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the harm was under the defendant’s control, and the plaintiff didn’t contribute to the damage. This lets the fact-finder infer negligence from the very occurrence, shifting the burden to the defendant to show they weren’t negligent. In medical contexts, examples include leaving a surgical instrument inside a patient or operating on the wrong site—events that typically signal carelessness and don’t require expert testimony to recognize. The other concepts refer to different ideas: resondeat superior deals with an employer’s liability for employees, negligence per se uses a statute to prove negligence, and battery is an intentional harmful contact.

Res ipsa loquitur describes a situation where the incident itself shows negligence, so expert testimony on breach isn’t needed. It applies when the injury wouldn’t ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the harm was under the defendant’s control, and the plaintiff didn’t contribute to the damage. This lets the fact-finder infer negligence from the very occurrence, shifting the burden to the defendant to show they weren’t negligent. In medical contexts, examples include leaving a surgical instrument inside a patient or operating on the wrong site—events that typically signal carelessness and don’t require expert testimony to recognize. The other concepts refer to different ideas: resondeat superior deals with an employer’s liability for employees, negligence per se uses a statute to prove negligence, and battery is an intentional harmful contact.