Court Opinion

ID: 9661352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:36:27.446289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:27.648279
License: Public Domain

Larson, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the.result and with the opinion as written with the exception of Division IV thereof. I would simply conclude as to that proposition that there was no substantial evidence as to how the fire started, and nothing appears which would raise an inference of causation.
The authorities cited by the majority in this division are not in point. In both the Tedrow and Hutchinson cases I felt, and still do, that there was substantial evidence from which a proper inference of causation would arise. In this enlightened age almost anyone knows placing pennies in a fuse box invites a disastrous fire. The proprietor either knew or should have known of that negligent act. Not so here, where no such self-connecting facts appear. The mere fact that one of those lost in this fire was intoxicated and was smoking a cigarette when he went upstairs an hour earlier, even when connected with a prior fire when he was smoking in bed, falls far short of establishing an inference the fire was started by his negligence at this time. The majority’s statement that the inference of causation in the Tedrow case was much stronger I agree is an understatement to say the least. The dividing line is between them, in my humble opinion.