98. Without any other evidence, is the customer likely to prevail?

C is correct. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, courts can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how the defendant behaved. The elements of duty, breach, and causation are inferred from the injury because it would not ordinarily occur without negligence. The customer presented evidence that neither the customer nor any third party had done anything with the can after it was opened that would account for the glass. Therefore, the jury can infer that if not for negligence on behalf of the canning company, the injury would not have occurred.

A is incorrect. Canned food is sealed in such a way that it is almost impossible to open or tamper with. Any tampering would be immediately obvious. Therefore, the only explanation for the glass in the corn is negligence during the canning process.

B is incorrect. Although no direct evidence has been presented, negligence can be inferred for the purposes of res ipsa loquitur.

D is incorrect. Although this is true, it is not the reason the customer would be likely to prevail. This would be a better argument to absolve the grocery store of liability.