Bava Kamma 27B

קא משמע לן דאין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב.

the Mishnah teaches us that the court does not follow the majority with regard to monetary matters, and in cases of uncertainty the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה ⁠– פטור. אמאי פטור? איבעי ליה לעיוני ומיזל!

§ The Mishnah teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Talmud asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.

אמרי דבי רב משמיה דרב: בממלא רשות הרבים כולה חביות. שמואל אמר: באפילה שנו. רבי יוחנן אמר: בקרן זוית.

The rabbis of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the Mishnah is taught with regard to one who placed not just one jug in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with jugs, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels. Shmuel says: The ruling of the Mishnah is taught with regard to a case where he broke it in the dark. Therefore, he could not have avoided breaking the jug by examining the road in front of him. R' Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the Mishnah is taught with regard to a case where the jug was placed at the corner of the road, and so the pedestrian could not have seen it, as he rounded the corner, before stumbling on it.

אמר רב פפא: לא דיקא מתניתין אלא או כשמואל, או כרבי יוחנן. דאי כרב, מאי אריא נתקל? אפילו שבר נמי!

Rav Pappa said: The Mishnah is precise only according to either the explanation of Shmuel or that of R' Yoḥanan, but not that of Rav. As, if the Mishnah is explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav, what is the reason it refers specifically to a case where one stumbled on the jug? Even if he broke the jug intentionally he should not be liable to pay, as the owner of the jug had no right to block the public road.