Notes and Comments:

1.The Westin St.Francis Hotel is a well-known architecture in San Francisco,has a long history,and has hosted many world famous people,including Barack Obama,Dwight Eisenhower,Queen Elizabeth II,Shirley Temple,etc.

2.What is the reason that the owner of a building should be held responsible for objects falling (and hurting others) off the building? Under res ipsa loquitur,it seems reasonable that if the thing (the instrumentality) is under exclusive control of someone,and that if the thing in normal conditions would not have come out of the building,it then can be inferred that some failure of due care (negligence)has somehow occurred.Notice,however,that this does not eliminate the initial burden of proof from the plaintiff who still needs to prove the quintessential element of res ipsa,which the plaintiff in Larson failed.If the plaintiff is successful in establishing res ipsa,and only then,the burden is shifted to the defendant to disprove each and every element of negligence.(https://www.daowen.com)

3.Yet,it must be kept in mind that res ipsa,like the judge’s comment in Ballad,is not a legal rule;it’s not even a doctrine;it’s just a common phrase,a proverb;and should not be treated as a principle in place of the initial burden of proof.And most of all,it should not be used as a principle of shifted burden.Or a weird result may entail.Look at the following example.