Is the bank correct in claiming that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine?
A)The bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B)The bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
C)The bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
D)The bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
E)The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation,not whether there was a lack of due care.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The plaintiff uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not,the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm,even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
B)The plaintiff uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not,the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm,even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
C)The plaintiff uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not,the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm,even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
D)The plaintiff uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not,the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm,even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
E)The plaintiff uses the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not,the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm,even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.

Is the Bank Correct in Claiming That It Should Be