A plaintiff's attorney decides to use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in a case against the urologist who perforated a patient's urethra during a cystoscopy. What must the plaintiff prove? Select all possible correct answers

Question

1. This complication does not generally occur unless someone provided negligent care.
2. Several agencies, from the manufacturer to the physician, were involved in the negligence.
3. The plaintiff had no control over the development of the perforation.
4. The locality rule was in effect at the time of the procedure.
5. The event causing the perforation was deliberate.

Answer 1

1 and 3
Rationale: In order to prove the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the plaintiff must prove that perforation of the urethra does not occur unless someone was providing negligent care. The accident must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within exclusive control of the defendant and the plaintiff must have no control over the accident. The locality rule is not pertinent to the use of res ipsa loquitor. There is no need to prove that the event was deliberate.