{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011834319526627219, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.195121951219512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Res ipsa loquitor: No sui generis application to aesthetic surgery

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can allow a plaintiff to raise an inference of negligence which a defendant is then compelled to refute. However, the doctrine has rarely been applied in clinical negligence contexts because courts have been reluctant to require doctors to refute an inference of responsibility for pathophysiological outcomes. But does that imperative apply equally to aesthetic surgery? A recent case shows that it does.