According to the 3rd Restatement, when may a factfinder infer negligence?

The correct choice is that a factfinder may infer negligence when the accident is common among a certain class of actors. This aligns with the principles outlined in the 3rd Restatement of Torts, which addresses the concept of negligence per se, as well as the idea of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

In situations where an accident typically does not occur without negligent behavior, a factfinder can reasonably infer that negligence was involved in the incident. The rationale is that if a particular type of accident is frequently associated with a specific group of individuals who generally engage in similar acts, it provides a strong indication that some form of negligence likely contributed to the occurrence.

This understanding is grounded in the social expectations of care and safety among various actors within society, and it allows for an inference of negligence based on the nature of the event rather than requiring direct evidence of negligent behavior.

Other choices do not support the premise of inferring negligence as effectively. For instance, asserting that the accident was not caused by negligence contradicts the very idea of inferring negligence, while suggesting that the defendant was not involved in the accident removes them from responsibility altogether. Additionally, saying that the plaintiff did not prove damages is irrelevant to the determination of whether