In medical negligence cases, which of the following is not correct about res ipsa loquitur:
A. That it is common knowledge that the kind of accident which caused the harm does not occur without a physician’s negligence.
B. That the equipment or conduct that caused the injury was at all times under the physician’s control.
C. That there is an absence of a reasonable explanation as to how the harm occurred.
D. That the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable.
Answer: D
Literally, "res ipsa loquitur" is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." It signifies that further details are unnecessary; the facts of the case are self-evident. It was first formulated in the English 1863 case Byrne v. Boadle. In medical negligence/malpractice, examples of common cases are:
1. Leaving a foreign object inside the patient after surgery or other invasive procedure
2. Operating on the wrong patient
3. Operating on the wrong part of the patient
This principle does not reverse the buden of proof and it is still up to the claimant to produce evidence to show that the defendant is liable.
Reference
1. Wikipedia
2. Legal Reference System: Search for res ipsa loquitur in this system to learn more