prove that, more probably than not, his injury was dangerous activities which injure others or of those under some special relationship of care to others injured through their activity. In this type of situation, the effect of the doctrine is not only to supply an element of proof but also to shift the burden onto such type of defendant to explain or pay. Malone, Res Ipsa Loquitur, 4 La.L.Rev. 70, 95-99, 103 (1941); Prosser on Torts, pp. 213, 223, 228-30 (4th ed. 1971).caused by the negligence of the defendant.Applying these principles to the present controversy, the evidence as a [**637] whole shows that the defendant's insured's negligence was the most plausible or likely cause of the fire which caused the decedent's death. 7We cannot as reasonably ascribe any other cause. In reaching this conclusion, we rely upon the following, among other, facts:[*766] The fire was spread through half the building in a little more or less than an hour after the restaurant was closed tight for the night. (This indicated it must have burned for some time before it had flared to this extent.) No one other[***11] than the insured's employees is shown to have had access to these premises subsequent to the time the restaurant was closed. Prior to then, the insured's employees had exclusive control of the kitchen premises in which the fire originated. The kitchen was a large scale commercial enterprise, likely to accumulate hazardous quantities of grease and other highly combustible substances.If all fire had been extinguished in the kitchen premises when the employees left, the evidence indicates no other cause for the fire's start: i. e., the conflagration was most reasonably caused by some fire (smouldering grease, or spark, or unextinguished flame fed by gas from the pilots) left alive in the premises when the employees locked up, for no other[***12] cause is even suggested by the evidence. Further, the evidence indicates that, if the extinguishing equipment worked as it should have, the fire could not have started or have spread so rapidly.We thus conclude that the evidence as a whole proves the most reasonable cause of [*767] the fire to have been the defendant's insured's negligence in leaving fire alive on his premises, which contained inflammable substances. Having so concluded, we find it unnecessary to discuss other specific aspects of negligence indicated by the evidence: the inadequacy of the extinguishing equipment, the letting gas escape from the pilots during the night, the failure to have secured Fire Department approval for installation of the ductwork and extinguisher system, and the fire hazard 7 Res ipsa loquitur has not infrequently been applied in Louisiana in cases of fire originating on the defendant's premises or in equipment installed by or under the control of the defendant. See Comment, 25 La.L.Rev. 748, 758 (footnote 57), listing eleven such decisions.