<Ul> <Li> John Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly . </Li> <Li> Jane's Corporation built and is responsible for maintaining the elevator . </Li> <Li> John sues Jane, who claims that his complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved or even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly . Therefore, she argues that there is no evidence that they were at fault . </Li> <Li> The court holds that John does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself . <Ul> <Li> The elevator evidently malfunctioned (it was not intended to fall, and that is not a proper function of a correctly - functioning elevator). </Li> <Li> Jane was responsible for the elevator in every respect . </Li> <Li> Therefore, Jane's Corporation is responsible for the fall . </Li> </Ul> </Li> <Li> The thing speaks for itself: no further explanation is needed to establish the prima facie case . </Li> </Ul> <Li> John Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly . </Li> <Li> Jane's Corporation built and is responsible for maintaining the elevator . </Li> <Li> John sues Jane, who claims that his complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved or even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly . Therefore, she argues that there is no evidence that they were at fault . </Li>

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would be applied in which of the following cases