With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to preclude reliance on res ipsa; they need only show that something other than Appellees’ negligence was just as likely to cause the escalator to stop. The fact that the escalator had never malfunctioned before the day in question, and has not malfunctioned since, makes it equally likely, if not slightly more likely, that the escalator did not malfunction on the day in question but, rather, that it stopped because somebody intentionally or unintentionally pushed an emergency stop button. Appellant also cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur in the present case because he cannot satisfy the second essential component of the doctrine, that the injury-causing instrumentality be in the exclusive control of the defendant. “The element of control has an important b 604-05, 102 A.2d 253, 256 (1954)(<HOLDING>); Smith v. Kelly, 246 Md. 640, 644, 229 A.2d

A: holding authority to control limits duty to control
B: holding that the remedies are exclusive
C: holding defendants control not exclusive where customers had access to selfservice washing machines
D: holding defendants control not exclusive where thousands of customers had access to revolving stools every week
D.