Court Opinion

ID: 9584974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:54:29.056248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:57.211828
License: Public Domain

Burke, J.
(on petition for rehearing). Appellant has petitioned for a rehearing in this case. His petition shows that he has misconstrued the opinion heretofore filed. He states that the decision is contrary to the rule expressed many times by this court, “that where the facts bearing upon the issues are in dispute and the evidence offers room for a reasonable difference of opinion the issue is for the jury.”
In this case the facts are not in dispute. All of the facts which have any bearing upon the cause of the fire upon defendant’s premises were elicited from one witness, plaintiff’s witness Hulett. There is no basis upon which a jury could determine that this witness’s observations and testimony were more accurate in any one respect than they were in others.
Plaintiff’s case must therefore stand or fall upon this witness’s entire testimony. We have said that a reasonable inference from this testimony is that the fire on defendant’s premises resulted from a cause for which defendant was not proven responsible and that this inference is at least as reasonable if not more reasonable than an inference the fire was caused by the negligent use of gasoline. With the evidence in this state, a prima facie case as to the cause of the fire was not established, *188because a verdict based upon such evidence could only be reached by pure conjecture or guesswork on the part of the jury. The petition for rehearing is denied. , .
• Morris, C. J., and Grimson and Christianson, JJ., concur.
Sathrb, J., did not participate.