Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, what must be true?

In the legal concept of res ipsa loquitur, which translates to "the thing speaks for itself," it is essential that the provider had exclusive control over the instrument or means that caused the injury. This doctrine allows a presumption of negligence to arise based on the nature of the accident itself. The requirement for exclusive control establishes that the provider or the entity being sued had the ability to prevent the injury through proper handling, maintenance, or use of the instrument.

For res ipsa loquitur to apply, it typically must be demonstrated that the injury is of a type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, which directly links to the necessity for exclusive control. The situation must be such that the accident or injury is inherently indicative of a failure in care or proper procedure that the provider could have managed or prevented.

The other options do not adequately capture the conditions necessary for invoking res ipsa loquitur. For instance, while proving negligence can indeed entail arguing that an injury would not have occurred without some negligence (an assertion closely related to option A), it is the matter of exclusive control that firmly underpins the application of the doctrine. The requirement of patient consent (option B) is a separate issue focusing on informed consent rather than negligence and control