Opinion ID: 2052356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of Special Appeals Proceedings

Text: On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, the court stated that [t]he major issue presented in this appeal is whether the motions judge was legally correct in granting summary judgment on the ground that the third party's failure to heed the manufacturer's warning was the sole proximate cause of the fire. [7] Hoon, 158 Md.App. at 651, 857 A.2d at 1185. Recognizing that `there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident,' id. at 655, 857 A.2d at 1188, the intermediate appellate court held that a jury could reasonably find that there were two concurrent proximate causes of the fire ... (1) Gede's negligence in failing to heed Lightolier's warning and (2) Lightolier's defective design (or negligent manufacture) of the SHTPs. Id. at 672, 857 A.2d at 1197. Because of what it considered to be this possible additional proximate cause of the fire, the Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court erred in granting Lightolier's summary judgment motion.