Which doctrine means "the thing speaks for itself" and does not require expert testimony to demonstrate negligence?

The doctrine that means "the thing speaks for itself" is referred to as res ipsa loquitur. This legal principle applies in situations where the nature of an accident or injury is such that it implies negligence on the part of the defendant, even without direct evidence. Essentially, it allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the event.

For example, in a case where a patient suffers an injury during surgery that would not ordinarily occur without negligence, the circumstances alone can suggest that the medical professionals involved acted improperly, thus requiring no additional expert testimony to prove negligence. This doctrine is particularly useful in medical malpractice cases where the details of what transpired may not be fully understood by the patient, but the outcome (e.g., a surgical instrument left in the body) clearly indicates a failure in care.

Other concepts like negligence per se focus on violations of statutes or regulations, suggesting that the act itself constitutes negligence due to its illegal nature. Strict liability pertains to holding a party responsible without fault, often in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products, where the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence at all. Vicarious liability addresses scenarios where one party is held liable for the actions of another, typically in an employer-