1. If, at the end of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moves for directed verdict, the trial judge should

When a defendant's conduct falls short of the applicable standard of care owed to the plaintiff, he has breached his duty. Whether the duty of care is breached is a question for the trier of fact. The circumstantial evidence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur («the thing speaks for itself») deals with situations where the mere fact that an injury occurred can establish or tend to establish a breach of duty. Where the facts strongly indicate that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the defendant's negligence, the trier of fact may be permitted to infer that the defendant was probably negligent. Res ipsa requires the plaintiff to show: (i) an inference of negligence (i.e., that the accident causing the injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone in the defendant's position was negligent); (ii) negligence attributable to the defendant (i.e., evidence that this type of accident normally happens because of negligence, such as that the instrumentality that caused the injury was in the defendant's exclusive control); and (iii) that the plaintiff is free from negligence, meaning the injury was not attributable to him.

Res ipsa loquitur does not change the burden of proof or create a presumption of negligence. A successful res ipsa showing by the plaintiff amounts to a prima facie case, which will preclude the defendant from being awarded a directed verdict. However, if the defendant rebuts the res ipsa showing with evidence that he did exercise due care, it has the same effect as in all other cases. In that scenario, the jury may either find that the defendant's evidence overcomes the plaintiff's res ipsa showing and decline to infer liability, or it may reject the defendant's evidence and draw the permissible inference of negligence, finding for the plaintiff. Even if the defendant rests without offering evidence, the jury may still elect not to infer negligence.

A directed verdict allows judgment for the moving party if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is such that a reasonable person/jury could not disagree.

Comparative negligence is a system that divides liability between the plaintiff and the defendant in proportion to their relative degrees of fault. The plaintiff will not be barred entirely from recovery where he is also negligent, but his recovery will be reduced by a proportion equal to the ratio between his own negligence and the total negligence contributing to the accident. «Pure» comparative negligence is a system where the plaintiff may recover (but at a reduced level) even if his fault is greater than the defendant.

D is correct. The pedestrian's legal representative is seeking to make a res ipsa loquitur claim, which allows a jury to infer the defendant's negligence. The representative offered evidence that the defendant was in exclusive control of the car that struck and instantly killed the pedestrian while walking on the highway shoulder, and no witnesses were present except the defendant, who denied negligence. A reasonable inference is that the defendant was driving negligently and somehow veered off the road, onto the shoulder, and hit the pedestrian. This is enough for the jury to infer the defendant's negligence. The next step after a res ipsa showing is for the jury to determine whether it will infer that the defendant was negligent, or that the defendant's denial of negligence is enough to defeat the plaintiff's res ipsa claim. Either way, the directed verdict should be denied and the case should go to the jury.

A is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the facts. The legal representative produced evidence sufficient to make a res ipsa claim, as explained above. The facts show that the plaintiff was injured by a car in the exclusive control by the defendant, in a scenario where this type of accident would normally be the result of the driver's negligence because the plaintiff was on the side of the road. The motion should therefore be denied because a jury could reasonably infer that the defendant was negligent.

B is incorrect. A directed verdict is improper where a plaintiff satisfies the requirements of res ipsa loquitur, after which the jury may choose to draw a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt or decline to do so, as previously explained. Regardless of the jury's determination, a res ipsa showing does not change the burden of proof or create any presumptions regarding negligence.

C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The directed verdict should be denied, but not based on whether the pedestrian violated the state highway code. The motion should be denied because, as explained above, a directed verdict is inappropriate where a res ipsa claim gives rise to a potential inference of negligence when it is for the jury to decide the issue. Moreover, this is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, which means that if the pedestrian had been negligent by violating the highway code, the representative may still recover on behalf of the pedestrian, even if by a reduced amount. Thus, the pedestrian's negligence would necessitate determinations regarding the applicability of pure comparative negligence and allocated responsibility, none of which may be done via a directed verdict.