<Tr> <Td> <Ul> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> </Ul> </Td> </Tr> <Ul> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> </Ul> <P> In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved . Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury . In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence . </P> <P> The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself ." The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech Pro Milone . The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent to 52 BC, some 1915 years before the English case Byrne v Boadle and the question whether Charles Edward Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case . </P>

Assuming res ipsa loquitur is established what is the effect of that doctrine
find me the text answering this question