To use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the

To use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:
a) The plaintiff’s injury was caused by an accident that would not normally have happened without
negligence
b) The thing causing the injury was within the exclusive control of the defendant.
c) The plaintiff did not provoke the accident.
1 st element - Accident Suggestive of Negligence
- The first element of res ipsa loquitur is that the accident would not normally have happened without
negligence by the defendant.
2 nd element – Exclusive Control by Defendant
- The second element of res ipsa loquitur is that the instrumentality causing the injury must have been in
the exclusive control of the defendant prior to the accident, exclusive control is missing, the party who
was careless in the maintenance of the item causing the injury may not have been the defendant , but
rather someone else with access.
- This element of exclusive control can be difficult to establish
3 rd element – Plaintiff did not Provoke the Accident
- The third element requires that the plaintiff did not provoke or cause the accident
2.) Children and the Reasonable Person Test
< Children do not comprehend dangers obvious to more mature persons.
→Nor are children able to weigh cause and effect accurately.
< Unlike an adult, children cannot be expected to recognize risks and take appropriate precautions.
→Instead, children act upon childish instincts and impulses.
< This impacts the duty imposed by law on young people as well as the duty owed by adults to children.
< The law excuses a young child from negligent acts; a person injured by a young person’s conduct is not
entitled to compensation.
< Similarly, the duty imposed on adults to act reasonably is greater when young children are involved.
Room Furnishings
A hotel must anticipate dangers and use reasonable care to protect against them when furnishing a room that
will be occupied by children.
3.) Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
< A landowner generally owes no duty to a trespasser other than to refrain from causing him willful injury.
< There is an exception to this rule for child trespassers called the attractive nuisance doctrine.
→This doctrine is an outgrowth of the law’s recognition of youngster’s limited capacity to detect danger
and protect themselves from risk.

attractive nuisance – is a potentially dangerous object or condition of exceptional interest to young people
such as: a swimming pool
a large empty box
equipment or ditches at a construction site
< If an attractive nuisance exists on the property, the owner or occupier is required to exercise reasonable care
to protect children from associated risks.