Which term describes a negligence presumption when the event is obviously negligent and expert testimony is not required?

Which term describes a negligence presumption when the event is obviously negligent and expert testimony is not required?

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

Answer: (C)

Res ipsa loquitur describes a situation where the injury itself is enough to suggest negligence, without needing expert testimony. It applies when the event would not normally occur if someone had exercised due care, and the instrumentality or device causing the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control. Because the occurrence speaks for itself, the plaintiff’s burden is lightened: it is presumed negligence, and the defendant must show there was no negligence or provide a non-negligent explanation. A classic medical example is a sponge left inside a patient after surgery—the nature of the harm alone implies carelessness, so expert testimony isn’t required to establish breach, though the defendant can still dispute causation or responsibility. Misfeasance refers to performing a lawful act in an improper or careless way, which isn’t the automatic presumption of negligence that res ipsa loquitur provides. Negligence per se involves proving breach by violating a statute or regulation, which creates a negligence presumption under certain conditions but relies on a statutory violation rather than the event itself speaking to negligence. Respondeat superior deals with liability of an employer for an employee’s actions within the scope of employment, not a presumption about the nature of the event itself.

Res ipsa loquitur describes a situation where the injury itself is enough to suggest negligence, without needing expert testimony. It applies when the event would not normally occur if someone had exercised due care, and the instrumentality or device causing the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control. Because the occurrence speaks for itself, the plaintiff’s burden is lightened: it is presumed negligence, and the defendant must show there was no negligence or provide a non-negligent explanation. A classic medical example is a sponge left inside a patient after surgery—the nature of the harm alone implies carelessness, so expert testimony isn’t required to establish breach, though the defendant can still dispute causation or responsibility.

Misfeasance refers to performing a lawful act in an improper or careless way, which isn’t the automatic presumption of negligence that res ipsa loquitur provides. Negligence per se involves proving breach by violating a statute or regulation, which creates a negligence presumption under certain conditions but relies on a statutory violation rather than the event itself speaking to negligence. Respondeat superior deals with liability of an employer for an employee’s actions within the scope of employment, not a presumption about the nature of the event itself.