Court Opinion

ID: 9672542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:56:46.035056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.955059
License: Public Domain

TERNUS, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion m all respects except Division V. I think the trial court correctly refused to instruct on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Although expert testimony established that the explosion would not have occurred unless there was a defect in the tank, I do not think this testimony establishes that the explosion would not have occurred in the absence of Thermogas’s negligence. There was no evidence that a defect would not have existed unless Thermogas was negligent or that the defect would have been discovered had Thermogas exercised ordinary care in its inspection or recertifi-cation of the tank. Therefore, I think there was insufficient evidence that the accident would not ordinarily occur in the absence of Thermogas’s negligence.
CADY, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.