Which legal doctrine describes negligence that is obvious and does not require expert testimony?

• A. Contributory negligence
• B. Comparative negligence
• C. Respondeat superior
• D. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer: (D)

Res ipsa loquitur is used when the harm itself points to negligence, and expert testimony isn’t needed to show a breach. The idea is that the injury wouldn’t occur without someone being negligent, and the thing that caused the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control. Because the circumstances themselves speak to carelessness, the fact-finder can infer negligence even without a specialist explaining the breach. This differs from contributory or comparative negligence, which focus on the plaintiff’s own actions, or from respondeat superior, which concerns whether an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s actions. In practice, this doctrine applies when a clearly improper outcome occurs under care, and there’s no plausible innocent explanation other than negligence.