 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Dixon Industries9/17/2004
{ } Plaintiff-appellant Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) appeals from a directed verdict rendered against it on its subrogation claim for damages arising from a fire at the home of its insured. CIC filed suit against Dixon Industries based upon the allegation that a manufacturing defect in the homeowner's riding lawnmower, manufactured by Dixon, caused the fire. CIC contends that it met its burden of producing evidence demonstrating the existence of a manufacturing defect. Thus, CIC claims that the trial court erred in rendering a directed verdict.
{ } We conclude that the record before us demonstrates that CIC failed to present evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the existence of a defect, or that the defect existed at the time the mower left the control of Dixon. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I.
{ } CIC instituted suit against Dixon for damages arising from a fire allegedly caused by a mower. The following facts were adduced at trial:
{ } Lloyd and Diana Epperly purchased a Dixon riding lawn mower in April of 1997. The mower was used on a regular basis during the summer to mow the Epperlys' yard. It was also used as a snow plow in the winter. The Epperlys never experienced any electrical problems, or any other sort of problem, with the mower. They took the mower to the dealer for regular, routine maintenance.
{ } Lloyd Epperly used the Dixon mower to cut his grass on August 1, 2000. After he was finished mowing, he cleaned the mower and stored it in his garage. Mr. Epperly parked the mower between his two vehicles near the doors of the garage. A toy described as a Fisher-Price Power Wheels Jeep was also sitting between the vehicles near the mower.
{ } At six o'clock a.m. the next morning, a passerby came to the door of the Epperlys' residence and alerted them that their garage was on fire. The fire department was notified, and the fire was contained. The fire resulted in extensive damage to the garage and its contents.
{ } According to Michael Voorhees, Captain of the Buckland Volunteer Fire Department, most of the damage to the garage occurred between the two vehicles in the area where the lawn mower had been located. Voorhees did not recall whether a toy jeep had been situated near the mower.
{ } At all relevant times, the Epperlys had in effect a policy of insurance covering their house and garage. The policy was issued by CIC. Rick Spencer was engaged by CIC to investigate the fire. Spencer arrived at the Epperly home around three o'clock p.m. on the day of the fire. At that time, he noted that the mower had already been removed from the garage and that the area inside the garage had been partially swept. He also noted that "there were many pieces of wire around, surrounding this Dixon mower." Spencer collected three "baggies" of items that he thought were related to the mower. However, he was never able to identify the parts as belonging to the mower. The next day Spencer transported the mower and the baggies to a secure facility for storage.
{ } Spencer ruled out the Epperlys' vehicles, the garage door opener and two light fixtures as causes of the fire. Spencer opined that, based upon "the physical burn site, the burn patterns that are left after the fire, and training and education," he believed that the fire originated from the mower. Spencer did not mention the toy jeep in his report. However, at trial he testified that he was aware that the toy had been in the garage, and that it had been the subject of a recall because it had caused numerous house fires. Spencer also testified that he was aware that the toy had been used a day
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|