In the case of the escaped lion injuring a patron, which doctrine could the injured patron's lawyer invoke?

The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be invoked by the injured patron's lawyer because this legal concept allows a plaintiff to establish negligence based on the mere occurrence of an injury under circumstances that typically do not happen without negligence. In this scenario, the injury was caused by an escaped lion, which is an unusual and extraordinary event. It implies that the incident would not have occurred if the defendant (in this case, the zoo or establishment holding the lion) had exercised the appropriate level of care.

The essence of Res Ipsa Loquitur lies in the fact that the specifics of how the lion escaped may be hard to prove, but the very fact that the lion escaped and caused injury suggests negligence on the part of the party responsible for its containment and safety. The law assumes that the kind of incident that happened would not have happened in the absence of negligence and allows the jury to infer liability based on the circumstances surrounding the event. This doctrine is especially useful in situations where the injured party may not have direct evidence of negligence, but the nature and context of the event point strongly toward a lack of care on the part of the defendant.

In contrast, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk involve different principles relating to the injured