res ipsa loquitur Sentence Examples
- In the lawsuit alleging negligence, the plaintiff successfully invoked res ipsa loquitur, arguing that the facts alone spoke for themselves.
- The court held that res ipsa loquitur applied, presuming negligence since the injury would not have occurred without someone's carelessness.
- The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur mandates that the jury may infer negligence based on circumstantial evidence that the injury was caused by someone's fault.
- Res ipsa loquitur played a crucial role in the case, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove negligence.
- The plaintiff argued that res ipsa loquitur applies because the incident was an unusual one that ordinarily wouldn't have happened without negligence.
- The court found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply, as the evidence did not establish that the injury was caused by an instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control.
- Res ipsa loquitur raised a rebuttable presumption of negligence, requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence to undermine it.
- In the medical malpractice case, the plaintiff used res ipsa loquitur to argue that the surgeon's negligence caused the patient's injury.
- The court instructed the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, explaining how it could infer negligence based on the circumstances.
- Res ipsa loquitur served as a valuable tool for the plaintiff in proving liability based on the inference of negligence.
res ipsa loquitur Meaning
res ipsa loquitur (n)
a rule of evidence whereby the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened
Synonyms & Antonyms of res ipsa loquitur
No Synonyms and anytonyms found
FAQs About the word res ipsa loquitur
a rule of evidence whereby the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened
No synonyms found.
No antonyms found.
In the lawsuit alleging negligence, the plaintiff successfully invoked res ipsa loquitur, arguing that the facts alone spoke for themselves.
The court held that res ipsa loquitur applied, presuming negligence since the injury would not have occurred without someone's carelessness.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur mandates that the jury may infer negligence based on circumstantial evidence that the injury was caused by someone's fault.
Res ipsa loquitur played a crucial role in the case, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove negligence.
