In medical negligence cases, how does res ipsa loquitur affect the burden of proof?

• A. It requires direct proof of breach.
• B. The thing speaks for itself — the evidence strongly suggests negligence; not needing direct proof of breach.
• C. It is used only when patient consent is present.
• D. It means there is no negligence.

Answer: (B)

Res ipsa loquitur lets the situation speak for itself: when the injury typically results from negligence, the thing causing harm was under the defendant’s control, and the patient did not contribute to the harm, an inference of negligence arises without requiring direct proof of a specific breach. Because of that, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a non-negligent explanation or that no breach occurred. If the defendant can’t rebut that inference, the plaintiff can prove breach without presenting direct evidence of what exact act of negligence happened. This is why the correct answer says you don’t need direct proof of breach to establish negligence under res ipsa loquitur. The other statements don’t fit: consent isn’t tied to this doctrine, and res ipsa loquitur does not mean there is no negligence or require direct proof.