20. The plaintiff's motion should be

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 loquitur 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 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires a finding by the judge that the verdict could not have been reached by a reasonable jury.

C is correct. The plaintiff's motion should be denied because it was not unreasonable for the jury to have found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence to support a res ipsa loquitur showing, which would have allowed the jury to infer that the defendant was probably negligent. However, the defendant offered contrary evidence that she took multiple safety precautions, (which negates evidence of presumed negligence) and that juveniles had been tampering with cars in the neighborhood recently (which goes against an inference that she was in exclusive control of the instrumentality). Based on all of the evidence, the jury reasonably declined to infer negligence by the defendant. The motion should be denied because the jury did not act unreasonably in light of the evidence submitted by the defendant.

A is incorrect. This answer choice bypasses the dispositive issue. It states the legal principle that applies to causation, which is unnecessary to address in this case. The question is, did the jury act unreasonably in finding that the defendant did not breach the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, based on the proffered evidence? In other words, was it reasonable for the jury to decline to infer the defendant's negligence? Legal causation would only have been relevant if the jury had found that the defendant did NOT breach her duty of care because then it would have had to determine whether the defendant's actions caused the harm. As explained above, the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant was not unreasonable in light of the evidence that she did not breach her duty of care, and the motion should be denied.

B is incorrect. This is an incorrect conclusion given the facts presented. The jury's verdict was based on evidence produced by the defendant that contradicted much of the plaintiff's attempted res ipsa showing. The plaintiff's motion should only be granted if the verdict could not have been reached by a reasonable jury, which is not the case here.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The motion should be denied, but not because of the respective positions of the plaintiff and defendant to explain the accident. Even when a plaintiff makes a res ipsa showing, the burden of proof does not change and there is no presumption regarding negligence. It simply gives the jury the option to infer negligence by the defendant. The defendant, as in any civil case, may offer facts to defeat the plaintiff's evidence, which the defendant did here. The defendant successfully convinced the jury that she was not in exclusive control of the instrumentality, which prevented the plaintiff from convincing the jury to infer negligence.