Willis v. Gurry, 331 Mass. 19, 21 (1954). However, the evidence must contain facts from which reasonable inferences based on probabilities rather than possibilities may be drawn. Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). Marcus v. Griggs, Inc., 334 Mass. 139 (1956).
Manna v. Diebold Inc. 337 Mass. 754. Helie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24. Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169-170. The trial judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant.
See LeBlanc v. Atlantic Bldg. Supply Co. Inc. 323 Mass. 702, 706; Fucci v. W.W. Welch, Inc. 329 Mass. 467, 469; Helie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24; Falvey v. Hamelburg, 347 Mass. 430, 435-436. See also Luvera v. DeCaro, 317 Mass. 222, 224; Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169-170. Cf. Fant v. Zurich Ins. Co. 160 So.2d 443, 446 (La. Ct. App.).
Although generally it is "the special province of the jury" to determine whether a party breached their duty of care, Jupin v. Kask, supra, "a verdict must rest on something more than surmise or conjecture." Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). Here, the evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not warrant a finding that the Bar Room was negligent.
See Mabardy v. Campo, 344 Mass. 459, 462 (1962). Compare Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958). They were not required "to point out the exact way in which the accident occurred as long as [they] showed a greater likelihood that her injury came from an act of neglect for which the defendant was responsible."
And, it must be based on "probabilities rather than possibilities" and not the result of "mere speculation and conjecture". See Mullins v. Pine Manor College, supra, also at page 56; Carey v. General Motors Corp., 377 Mass. 736, 740 (1979); Marbardy v. Campo, 344 Mass. 459, 462 (1962); Knox v. Lamoureaux, 338 Mass. 167, 169 (1958); Hellie v. Goldstein, 338 Mass. 22, 24 (1958); Ghoti Estates, Inc. v. Freda's Capri Restaurant, Inc., 332 Mass. 17 (1954). Further, the law does not require the plaintiff to point out the exact way an accident occurred; and, the burden of proof can be sustained by proving "there was a greater likelihood or probability that the harm complained of was due to causes for which the defendant was responsible than from any other cause."