Res Ipsa Loquitor is a type of evidence. It is not a theory of recovery, a doctrine, a rule of law, or a test. It is a type of evidence. But I thought it was—-no; I suppose it shifts the standard presumption to be applied, not a presumption in itself. It is offered. It is a type of circumstancial evidence. “A res ipsa loquitur case is ordinarily merely one kind of case of circumstancial evidence, in which the jury may reasonably infer both negligence and causation from te mere occurrence of the event and the defendant’s relation to it.” Restatement Section 328D cmt. b. The phrase RES IPSA LOQUITUR entered law in response durinf oral argument in 1863 in England in the classic flour barrel on te head case (in Byrne v. Boadle. "[T]he phrase has no more importance or virtue than its English equivalent." Restatement § 328D cmt. a. "It adds nothing to the law, has no meaning which is not more clearly expressed for us in English, and brings confusion to our legal discussions." Potomac Edison Co. v. Johnson, 160 Md. 33, 152 A. 633 (1930) (dissent), quoted in Prosser & Keeton § 39, at 244 n. 20. CALI lessons, “Speaks 6 of 6.”

f. The jury is allowed to infer from the very event both breach of defendant's duty and causation.