With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The mere fact that the accident occurred is not sufficient grounds for concluding that Mullins was probably negligent, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is therefore inapplicable. See Drake, 924 P.2d at 1391. In his affidavit, Seligman asserts that the circumstances of the accident support an inference that Mullins may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, Seligman’s opinion is insufficient to establish that “in the ordinary course of events, [the] injury would not [have] occur[red] except by the negligence of [Mullins].” Drake, 924 P.2d at 1391. Specifically, Seligman has not ruled out other possible causes of the accident and has therefore failed to establish a probability that the accident occurred as a result of Mullins’s negligence. See Mireles, 872 P.2d at 866 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs claim that the accident could only

A: holding that while a foundation for an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be based on the testimony of an expert witness the experts testimony must establish that the occurrence indicates the probability of negligence
B: holding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable in case where both liability and causation had to be established by expert witnesses
C: holding that permitting jury to find malpractice from blood draw without expert testimony by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur instead of eliciting expert testimony as to the standard of care to be reversible error
D: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
A.