Which doctrine allows an inference of negligence based on the accident and the defendant's control, typically without direct evidence of fault?

• A. Assumption-of-risk defense
• B. Exclusive control
• C. Res ipsa loquitur
• D. Last clear chance doctrine

Answer: (C)

Res ipsa loquitur lets the fact finder infer negligence from the very occurrence of an accident and the defendant’s exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused it, even without direct proof of fault. For this to apply, the injury must be of a type that ordinarily doesn’t occur without negligence, and the instrumentality responsible for the injury must have been under the defendant’s control. Because no specific act of fault is proven, the burden shifts to the defendant to show there was no negligence or to offer a non-negligent explanation.

This fits the scenario because the question describes inferring negligence from the accident itself combined with the defendant’s control of the instrumentality, without direct fault evidence. The other options either describe different defenses or doctrines (an assumption of risk defense; a requirement that control be shown but not as a standalone doctrine; or a rule about who had the last opportunity to avoid harm) and do not capture the inference mechanism of res ipsa loquitur.