Question

Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in a restaurant when a very small piece of bone lodged in his throat. Fortunately, he was able to remove the bone with his fingers. However, he was upset by the incident and sued the restaurant for negligence. What is the most likely result in this case?

a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
b. Kyle will collect damages because the restaurant committed negligence per se.
c. Kyle will collect damages if he proves it was possible to prevent tiny fish bones from being present in clam chowder.
d. Kyle will collect damages, as res ipsa loquitur

Answer 1

In this case, it is unlikely that Kyle will be able to collect damages based on the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows plaintiffs to establish a presumption of negligence without having to provide direct evidence of negligence. However, the criteria for res ipsa loquitur may not be met in Kyle's case.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this case, it is unlikely that Kyle will be able to collect damages based on the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase meaning 'the thing speaks for itself.' It is a legal doctrine that allows plaintiffs to establish a presumption of negligence without having to provide direct evidence of negligence.

However, in order for res ipsa loquitur to apply, three criteria must be met:

1. The incident would not normally occur without negligence.
2. The defendant has exclusive control over the instrumentality or situation that caused the injury.
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause of the injury.

In Kyle's case, it is unlikely that the incident would not normally occur without negligence. It is possible for small bones to be present in clam chowder soup, and it is not uncommon for people to accidentally ingest small objects while eating. Therefore, it may be difficult for Kyle to establish that the bone in his throat was the result of the restaurant's negligence.

In addition, the restaurant may argue that Kyle contributed to the cause of his injury by not properly chewing his food or exercising reasonable caution while eating.

Overall, the most likely result in this case is that Kyle will not be able to collect damages based on res ipsa loquitur.