This burden shifts from P to D, and perhaps back again during the trial. This means that as the case goes to the jury, P must convince the jury that it is more probable than not that his injuries are due to D's negligence. B. Function of judge and jury 1. At trial, P shows that the barrel fell out of a window of D's shop, and that barrels do not fall out of windows without some negligence. By use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, P has presented enough evidence to justify a verdict for him, so unless D comes up with rebuttal evidence that the barrel did not come from his shop or was not dropped by negligence, D will lose.
P only has to prove that most of the time , negligence is the cause of such occurrences.
P, while walking on the sidewalk next to D hotel, is hit by a falling armchair. This is especially likely where all of the Ds participate together in an integrated relationship. P gets the benefit of res ipsa , and it is up to each individual defendant to exculpate himself. Res ipsa thus allows a particular kind of circumstantial evidence. When res ipsa is used, P has met his burden of production , and is thus entitled to go to the jury.