Which of the following terms is not a traditional defense used to shield employers from employee injury claims?

Which of the following terms is not a traditional defense used to shield employers from employee injury claims?

• A. Fellow Servant Rule
• B. Assumption of Risk
• C. Contributory Negligence
• D. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer: (D)

This item tests understanding of defenses used to limit an employer’s liability for worker injuries versus a rule used to prove negligence. The familiar defenses—fellow servant rule, assumption of risk, and contributory negligence—are traditional shields that can block or reduce responsibility: the fellow servant rule says another employee’s actions break the chain of liability, assumption of risk means the worker knowingly accepted the danger, and contributory negligence holds the worker partly to blame. Res ipsa loquitur, however, is not a shield; it’s an evidentiary doctrine that lets a plaintiff infer negligence from the very nature of the accident when the instrumentality was under the employer’s control and the injury wouldn’t normally happen without fault. It helps establish liability rather than protect the employer, so it’s not a traditional defense used to shield employers.

This item tests understanding of defenses used to limit an employer’s liability for worker injuries versus a rule used to prove negligence. The familiar defenses—fellow servant rule, assumption of risk, and contributory negligence—are traditional shields that can block or reduce responsibility: the fellow servant rule says another employee’s actions break the chain of liability, assumption of risk means the worker knowingly accepted the danger, and contributory negligence holds the worker partly to blame. Res ipsa loquitur, however, is not a shield; it’s an evidentiary doctrine that lets a plaintiff infer negligence from the very nature of the accident when the instrumentality was under the employer’s control and the injury wouldn’t normally happen without fault. It helps establish liability rather than protect the employer, so it’s not a traditional defense used to shield employers.