F: ruled in favor of D, and P appealed.
P sues damages for death of adult son, who was killed while a guest (riding) in a vehicle. The cause of death of son is not
precisely known whether it is due to D’s negligence, or due to no fault of his.
I: Where the conflicting inferences might be drawn form the evidence, whether it is for the jury to choose the inference as they deemed most appropriate
R: Yes. Res ipsa loquitur merely makes a case for the jury. Jury chooses the inferences to be made from the facts, and jury
decides the D's negligence. Or Where P established D's neg. based on res ipsa loquitur, the court must not always enter a verdict for P.
A: The truck reck could be due to (1) drivers negligence or (2) no fault of his own, thought an unavoidable accident cased by the breaks failing or some other mechanism in the trick failing to work properly. Since both inferences are possible from the
information in this case, it is proper that a jury should decide the issue of negligence.