assisted by res ipsa loquitur and had to go on to prove that the flat tyre was caused by the transport company's negligence. Scotland The doctrine exists in the Scots law of delict. The leading case is that of Scott v London & Catherine Dock Co. This case laid down 3 requirements for the doctrine to apply: There must be reasonable evidence of negligence The circumstances must be under the direct control of the defender or his servants The accident must be of such a type that would not occur without negligence. In Scott, the court held that sacks of sugar do not fall out of warehouses and crush passers-by without somebody having been negligent along the way, so the plaintiff did need not to show how it happened. Recent examples in Scotland are McDyer v Celtic Football Club and McQueen v The Glasgow Garden Festival 1988 Ltd. United States Under United States common law, res ipsa loquitur has the following requirements: The event does not normally occur unless someone has acted negligently; The evidence rules out the possibility that the actions of the plaintiff or a third party caused the injury; and The type of negligence in question falls within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. Most American courts recognize res ipsa loquitur. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328D describes a two-step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur. The first step is whether the accident is the kind usually caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident. If found, res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence, although in most cases it does not necessarily result in a directed verdict. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17, adopts a similar test, although it eschews the exclusive control element. The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v. Wright, a seven-inch hemostat was left in Mrs. Gray during gallbladder surgery in June 1947, and despite her chronic complaints about stomach pain over the years, the device was not found until an X-ray in March 1953, when it was removed. Her $12,000 award was reversed by the Supreme Court of West Virginia because she was outside the statute of limitations when she filed and could not prove that the doctor concealed knowledge of his error. This "guilty knowledge" requirement