 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Dixon Industries9/17/2004
inds would be required to speculate whether the mower had an electrical defect, and whether that defect caused the Epperly fire. The only basis upon which to find for CIC on this evidence would involve the piling of a number of inferences upon one another. First one must infer that the fire started in the lawnmower (which had never manifested any electrical problems), despite the existence of a competing inference that the fire started in the toy jeep (of a type and model that had been the subject of a recall because of its tendency to spontaneously ignite). Then one must infer that the fire started in the lawnmower as a result of a defect in the lawnmower's electrical system. Finally, one must infer that the defect in the electrical system was present when the lawnmower left the manufacturer. In our view, the cumulation of these inferences is of insufficient probative force to permit a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defect in the lawnmower at the time the lawnmower left the manufacturer caused the fire in the Epperlys' garage.
{ } The sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
III.
CIC's sole Assignment of Error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GRADY and WALSH, JJ., concur.
(Judge James E. Walsh of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
|