Court Opinion

ID: 9731667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:53:56.993453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:20.308860
License: Public Domain

Larson, J.
(dissenting)- — -I am unable to concur in tbe conclusion of the majority that the specification of negligence that the defendants allowed “pennies to be placed in the fuse box thereby allowing an overload of electricity to flow through the wires” was nothing more than mere speculation as to the cause of the fire. I cannot agree that, if proven, these facts would not give rise to a fair inference that such acts were the actual cause of the fire.
I could think of few facts which would create a greater inference of causation. One who eliminates the protection of fuses in an electrical wiring system invites trouble, usually a fire. The need for fuses in the system here was clear. Indeed, without that protection, service to that building would not have been permitted. It is necessary protection universally recognized for the protection of life and property. It protects against overloads for various reasons, such as crossed wires, stuck motors, or too many active appliances on one system. When the load becomes too great for the wires used in the system, the fuses burn out and cut out that circuit. Too much current was being used here for safety, as indicated by the installation of the pennies in the fuse box. The installer, as well as the persons responsible, must have been aware of this overload, and for that reason attempted to short out or by-pass the fuse protection bjr the installation of the pennies.
Could anyone think of a greater fire hazard than the placing of pennies behind fuses in order to activate a circuit which, due to an overload on the system, has destroyed the necessary fuse ? Overloaded lines are known to get hot, burn the insulation from the wires, and ignite any inflammable substances near by. To *775knowingly maintain sncb a condition seems not only negligence but approaches criminal negligence.
The fact that the very thing that could be expected to happen did happen, i.e., fire in the portion of the building served by the circuits that were shorted out, could lead to no other conclusion but that the alleged facts plus their fair inferences generated a jury question, at least as to whether such acts of negligence were the actual cause of the fire and disaster. If ever facts speak for themselves, these do — loud and clear.
Hats, J., joins in this dissent.