In what context does the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" apply?

The doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" translates to "the thing speaks for itself." This legal principle applies in tort cases, particularly in medical malpractice, and is used when the nature of the injury suggests that negligence was likely involved, even if there is no direct evidence of specific negligent behavior.

In the context where harm typically does not occur without negligence, this doctrine allows the court to infer that the defendant's negligence is the most plausible explanation for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. It shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to provide evidence that they were not negligent. The classic example is a surgical instrument being left inside a patient after surgery; such an event does not usually happen in the absence of negligence.

The other options do not fit the context of "res ipsa loquitur." Contractual disputes involve different legal principles, and minor medical errors that do not cause harm would not typically invoke this doctrine, as there is no significant injury to warrant a negligence claim. Additionally, if a patient was aware of the risks and subsequently experienced harm, it usually falls under informed consent rather than establishing the basis for negligence required for the application of "res ipsa loquitur."