"`"Intervening" is used in a time sense; it refers to later events.'" (Citation omitted.)
How later courts described this case
- "`"Intervening" is used in a time sense; it refers to later events.'" (Citation omitted.)
- noting that the statute contains no definition of “assemble,” and concluding “the dictionary meanings of ‘assemble’ and ‘assembler’ contemplate a person or thing that brings together [two or more] things”
- allowing a plaintiff to bring a general negligence claim under res ipsa loquitur when the plaintiff had an expert who could not pinpoint a defect in a liquid propane fuel tank, but testified the premature explosion of the tank was the result of a defect
- holding foreseeable intervening force is within scope of defendant’s negligence and will not relieve defendant of liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.