2. If the pedestrian proves the foregoing facts and offers no other evidence explaining the accident, will his claim survive a motion for directed verdict offered by the defense?

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that permits the factfinder to infer negligence when there is no direct evidence that the defendant acted negligently. To establish res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must show (i) the event that happened is one that usually does not occur absent the negligence of a party; (ii) evidence connecting the defendant with the negligence (often satisfied by showing that the harm was caused by something in the defendant's exclusive control); and (iii) the plaintiff is not the one who caused the event to occur. Courts generally apply the «exclusive control» element liberally. If the above elements are met, res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence.

D is correct. Here, the elements of res ipsa loquitur are not met. Even applying the exclusive control element liberally, this element is not met for the landlord because there were 70 units rented and no evidence the landlord had any knowledge of, for example, issues of falling flowerpots that he failed to address (which would be evidence of direct negligence in any event). Thus, res ipsa loquitur does not apply, and the plaintiff has not made a showing of the landlord's negligence.

A is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the law. Although a land possessor and landowner owe a duty to protect others from dangerous, non-obvious, artificial conditions on the land that extend off the land, that liability is not strict liability. Instead, the land possessor and owner must act reasonably as to any such artificial conditions. This rule can also apply for natural conditions like trees in urban settings. Here, there is no indication the landlord failed to act reasonably as to the artificial condition. Note that a falling plant is not automatically a natural condition, and a plant in a flowerpot is normally an artificial condition.

B is incorrect. This answer choice states the general concept of res ipsa loquitur — that it imposes liability where the act normally would not have occurred absent the defendant's negligence — but the answer choice fails to establish this. Res ipsa loquitur requires a showing that the defendant had control of the instrumentality. That element is not met here, and thus this answer oversimplifies the doctrine's requirements and is incorrect.

C is incorrect. This answer choice is not necessarily factually correct since a pedestrian walking outside a building likely is in a weaker position than the building's landlord to explain matters that arose from a condition related to the building's tenants. More importantly, however, a defendant is not normally required to prove the plaintiff's lack of a case.