[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
-Claiming that recovery under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is an option, do you believe the bank is correct?
A) Yes, the bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B) Yes, the bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C) Yes, the bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
D) No, the bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of duty of care.
E) No, the bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The bank is incorrect because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when an accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence, and the instrumentality of the harm was in the exclusive control of the defendant. However, the key issue in this scenario is whether Teresa's negligence in rear-ending Devin's truck was the proximate cause of the bank's damages, not the mere existence of negligence. The doctrine does not automatically make Teresa liable for all resultant damages, especially in complex cases where causation must be closely examined.

[Blow Up] Devin Has Several Full Gas Cans in the Bed