Court Opinion

ID: 9571127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:13.041824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:17.792844
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in Divisions 1 and 2. Because of the dissent’s interpretation of Division 3, I must explain my concurrence in that division. The majority acknowledges that plaintiff must show a causal connection between the breach of a legal duty and the damages complained of but then points to the fire chief’s affidavit as evidence related to the amount of damages. That does not address the proximate cause element of the alleged tort. The fire chiefs affidavit provides some evidence that the defendants’ failure to post a watchman was a contributing cause of the extent of the damages sustained. Since mo-vant failed to show conclusively that its acts or omissions while it was in custody and control of the premises were not a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff as a result of the fire, it was not entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.