Ed's Auto Shop repaired the left front and body of Maureen's car. Subsequently, she is injured in a head-on accident where her left headlight fails to illuminate properly. From the wreckage, it is determined that the headlight was disconnected. Expert engineers are prepared to testify that headlights "don't just become disconnected" and that the impact of the crash could not have caused the disconnection. In Maureen's case against Ed's for negligence in the repair of her vehicle, which doctrine will Maureen use to allow circumstantial evidence to prove that a breach in the standard of care caused her accident?

Ed's Auto Shop repaired the left front and body of Maureen's car. Subsequently, she is injured in a head-on accident where her left headlight fails to illuminate properly. From the wreckage, it is determined that the headlight was disconnected. Expert engineers are prepared to testify that headlights "don't just become disconnected" and that the impact of the crash could not have caused the disconnection. In Maureen's case against Ed's for negligence in the repair of her vehicle, which doctrine will Maureen use to allow circumstantial evidence to prove that a breach in the standard of care caused her accident?

Ed's Auto Shop repaired the left front and body of Maureen's car. Subsequently, she is injured in a head-on accident where her left headlight fails to illuminate properly. From the wreckage, it is determined that the headlight was disconnected. Expert engineers are prepared to testify that headlights "don't just become disconnected" and that the impact of the crash could not have caused the disconnection. In Maureen's case against Ed's for negligence in the repair of her vehicle, which doctrine will Maureen use to allow circumstantial evidence to prove that a breach in the standard of care caused her accident? 


Answer: Res Ipsa loquitur


Learn More Multiple Choice Question :