8. In Byrne v. Boadle, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (Ex. 1863), the plaintiff was walking along the
sidewalk in front of the premises of the defendant, a dealer in flour, when he was struck and
injured by a barrel of flour that fell from a window above. Several witnesses testified that they
saw the barrel fall and hit the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming negligence.
Suppose that the plaintiff cannot offer direct evidence of the defendant's negligence but can
offer evidence (e.g., eyewitness and/or expert testimony) that: (i) the barrel that struck
him flew through a closed window; (ii) the cost of a shatterproof window is $1,000; (iii) a
shatterproof window would have prevented his injury; and (iv) his damages were $50,000.
(a) Use the Hand rule to derive a condition that, if satisfied, would imply that the defendant
was negligent.
(b) Would it be appropriate for a court to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this
case? Why or why not?
