In what circumstances will the res ipsa loquitur doctrine be applied to a plaintiff in a personal injury case?

We begin our discussion with an acknowledgement of the policy concerns which prompted the formulation of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. "If [it] is to continue to serve a useful purpose, we should not forget that 'the particular force and justice of the rule, ..., consists in the circumstance that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to [the defendants] but inaccessible to the injured person.' [Citations.] ... without the doctrine the maxim that for every wrong there is a remedy would be rendered nugatory, 'by denying one, patently entitled to damages, satisfaction merely because he [or she] is ignorant of facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the party who should, in all justice, pay them.' " (Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 490, [208 Cal.App.3d 1195] 154 P.2d 687.) Clearly, the particular facts of the case before us places it within the reason and spirit of the doctrine.