A pedestrian was walking on the sidewalk in front of a multi-story hotel when they were struck by a heavy planter that fell from the hotel’s balcony above. The pedestrian filed a negligence lawsuit against the hotel. There is no direct evidence showing how the planter came to fall. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the pedestrian invoking res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence?
The planter fell from a balcony, and such accidents do not occur without negligent acts.
The pedestrian was struck by a planter, and the hotel failed to provide evidence disproving its involvement in the planter’s fall.
The falling of the planter demonstrates negligence because it resulted in injury to the pedestrian.
The planter was located on the hotel's premises, and the hotel was responsible for managing and maintaining the items on its property.
The correct answer identifies the essential conditions for res ipsa loquitur to apply: (1) the harm is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without someone being negligent, (2) the instrumentality causing the harm was within the defendant's control, and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to their injury. The hotel’s responsibility for maintaining the planter and its surroundings, which were within its control, satisfies these conditions. Other answers either fail to prove the hotel's control over the planter or improperly focus on conclusions without satisfying the doctrine’s requirements.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does res ipsa loquitur mean and how does it work in negligence cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the three conditions that must be satisfied for res ipsa loquitur to apply?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is the hotel's responsibility for maintaining the planter significant in this case?