When a plaintiff cannot directly prove foreseeable or proximate harm stemmed from the defendant's actions, courts are sometimes willing to infer that the defendant's actions did cause the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury, the harm of this type would not normally occur in the absence of negligence, and the plaintiff had no role in causing the injury. Which extension of the law is this?

Select one:

a$.$

Assumption of the risk.

b$.$

Stare decisis.

c$.$

Factual cause.

d$.$

Res ipsa loquitur