The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been a source of confusion to the courts since its inception in the famous case of Byrne v. Boadle, where a barrel of flour rolled out of a warehouse window and injured a passing pedestrian. From its birth to the present, the doctrine has been riddled with various nuances concerning both its application and effect. Despite a lack of uniformity among the courts with respect to its use, there has been general agreement that proper analysis of the doctrine presents two considerations. First, whether the particular facts and circumstances necessary to invoke res ipsa are present. Second, assuming the doctrine applies, what are its procedural consequences? While most courts agree on the factual situations gi...