Cornell professor Joan Jacobs Brumberg attended a university fundraiser catered by Cipriani. During the event, she feasted on fancy appetizers. About 30 minutes later, she felt intense abdominal pain, which did not go away. Weeks later, her doctors removed a 1 1/2-inch piece of wood from her digestive tract. The shard caused internal injuries, which took two surgeries to repair. Brumberg’s physician believed that her injuries were the result of eating wood at Cornell’s cocktail party. On that day, she had eaten little else and had experienced no pain until the event, where she ate many appetizers, including shrimp on wood skewers. The doctor supposed that the wood moved through her digestive system for 30 minutes before becoming caught and causing the pain. But when experts compared Brumberg’s shard with the wood in Cipriani’s toothpicks and skewers, they found that the two were not the same material, eliminating direct evidence of causation. Brumberg sued Cipriani USA, Inc. for negligence. A lower court dismissed her case on a motion for summary judgment, concluding there was not enough proof that Cipriani caused Brumberg’s injury. The professor appealed, relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Questions:

1. Does re ipsa loquitur apply here?

2. What are the criteria for res ipsaloquitor to apply?

3. Which element do the parties dispute in this case?