his burden to prove that he was not at fault in maintaining the pasture’s gates and fences is now moot because of our ruling upon the admissibility of plaintiffs’ photographs. At a new trial, defendant will have new evidence to rebut. We therefore hold that plaintiffs met their burden on the five essential elements and having done so, were entitled to have defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence denied. Defendant must now produce what evidence he can to show he and his agents were not negligent in enclosing the animal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for new trial. All concur. 1 . All sectional references are to Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1978. 2 . See also Cox v. Moore, 394 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.App.1965) (<HOLDING>) and King v. Furry, 317 S.W.2d 690
holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence