2. Helen toured a town house built by Thames. While inspecting the kitchen, she opened a cabinet; the cabinet door fell and struck her on the head. An examination revealed that no screws were affixed to the door to secure it to the cabinet. She filed suit against the cabinetmaker and offered proof of her injury relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Should she recover

The accident is her proof.

Explanation:

So, here are the things that needs to be noted in order to answer this problem/ question effectively and efficiently;

=> the house is built by Thames.

=> During Helen's kitchen inspection, "she opened a cabinet; the cabinet door fell and struck her on the head. "

=> It was shown that no screws were affixed to the door to secure it to the cabinet.

=> Helen filed suit against the cabinetmaker and offered proof of her injury relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur''

So, THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR is used by injured people or Individual filling suit against another party. This is done in order to sue the accused of being "negligent" and make sure that the accused pay for the damages/injuries. Thus is what Helen is going to use to "fight" the cabinetmake in the court of law.

arsonist charge

explanation:

when you light somebody's property on fire you are considered and arsonist and are charged with an arsonist charge

answer: they get money for not letting the president go

explanation: