Ewin B. Jenkins et al v. Big City Remodeling et al. - Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

What was the proximate cause of the fire and explosion that led to this lawsuit? That was the central question before the trial court. The plaintiffs' theory on this subject is correctly set forth in the majority's opinion:

 

. . . [the plaintiffs] asserted that Flooring Subcontractors [(the subcontractors)] allowed flammable rags to remain on or near the exterior deck and also smoked cigarettes in the area. As claimed by [the plaintiffs], the improper disposal of cigarette butts resulted in the stain-soaked rags igniting, thereby causing the fire.

 

The subcontractors were on the construction site to “stain[ ] . . . the hardwood floors.”

In my judgment, the problem in this case is an absence of evidence showing a nexus between the subcontractors' conduct – negligent as it certainly was – and the fire.