(DOWNLOAD) "Leo Smith v. Squire Homes" by Supreme Court of New York ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Leo Smith v. Squire Homes
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 25, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
[38 A.D.2d 879 Page 879] Memorandum: A mobile home and its contents were totally destroyed by fire in May, 1967. As a result, the owner of the mobile home, plaintiff Smith, doing business as Circle Court Mobile Homes, sued Squire Homes, Inc., the manufacturer, and Lear Siegler, Inc., the maker of the natural gas furnace which came installed in the mobile home, alleging three causes of action against them grounded in (1) negligence, (2) implied warranty, and (3) strict products liability. Carlton and Catherine Fruck, the owners of the personal property, commenced actions in bailment against Smith and in negligence against Smith, Squire Homes, and Lear Siegler. A jury returned a general verdict in favor of Smith and Fruck against Squire Homes and Lear Siegler. At the trial the pivotal issue was the proximate cause of the fire. para. The plaintiffs introduced evidence to show that the fire started in the gas burner when the gas valve stuck due to an inherent defect in it or because a particle lodged in the valve due to the absence of a sediment trap. To support this theory, plaintiffs offered the testimony of an expert who testified that in his opinion the fire had been caused by a sticking valve becoming overheated, melting and causing a "runaway" fire. He specifically stated that the melting would occur in a temperature range of four to five hundred degrees and that such a range of temperature could not be achieved unless there occurred a mal-functioning in the thermostat and limit switches. However, there was no evidence whatsoever that these instruments were not functioning. Thus, the opinion offered by the plaintiffs' expert was based on facts which were assumed and which were neither in evidence nor properly inferrable from facts that were in evidence. The trial court improperly received this opinion testimony. Without it, the record is insufficient to sustainthe verdict (Leonard v. Ashley Welding Mach. & Iron Co., 11 A.D.2d 1073, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 993; cf. Tarlowe v. Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 N.Y.2d 410, 414). Although there was other evidence from which the jury might have come to the same conclusion, there was also evidence that the fire was caused by a leak in a union made by plaintiff Smith himself, a cause for which defendant would not have been liable. In our view, the erroneous introduction of the expert's opinion prejudiced the defendants in their effort to establish this other cause for the fire. When the precise cause [38 A.D.2d 879 Page 880]
 "Leo Smith v. Squire Homes" by Supreme Court of New York ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}