to allege it and maintain the burden of going forward with the evidence on the point. The plaintiff is accordingly put on notice to try to prove no substantial changes were made. And as a general rule, rather than requiring a plaintiff to negate an infinite number of possible changes, it seems more reasonable and in keeping with our adversary process to expect the defendant to allege the substantial changes he expects a plaintiff to try to disprove. But once the defendant has come forward, we believe that the burden of proof (or again, more precisely, the risk of non-persuasion) must remain with the plaintiff; if the scales remain in equilibrium on the point, plaintiff is the loser. Id. at 857. See also Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199, 694 A.2d 1319, 1341 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Berry v. Gibson, 141 Ill.App.3d 876, 96
holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute holding that plaintiff need not rebut every possible alteration or modification but only those that the defendant has produced holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference