Cashman v. Van Dyke, 815 N.W.2d 308

Cashman sued Van Dyke for negligence, strict liability, and res ipsa after a propane explosion destroyed both homes.
Van Dyke lit the furnace pilot overnight after feeling cold; the fire exploded, injuring him and destroying property.
Witnesses reported Van Dyke saying it “blew up” and that he should have waited for Schultz to light the pilot.
Van Dyke’s father warned him to wait for Schultz; the father told others Van Dyke should have waited.
Van Dyke settled separately with CHS, Inc. regarding a propane-related case; Cashman pursued this suit in 2009.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Van Dyke, ruling no evidence of negligence, abnormally dangerous activity, or res ipsa.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligence: Did Van Dyke negligently light the pilot?	Cashman argues inferences show negligence from statements and timing.	Van Dyke contends there is no evidence of negligent conduct.	No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed.
Abnormally dangerous activity: Is lighting a home furnace pilot abnormally dangerous?	Lighting the pilot is inherently dangerous due to potential gas pooling.	Not abnormally dangerous; no high risk or unusual danger shown.	Not abnormally dangerous; summary judgment upheld.
Res ipsa loquitur: Should the doctrine apply to infer negligence?	Explosion implies lack of due care by Van Dyke.	Explosion lacks a proven causal link to Van Dyke’s negligence.	Res ipsa inapplicable; insufficient basis for inference.

Paradigm Hotel Mortgage Fund v. Sioux Falls Hotel Co., Inc., 511 N.W.2d 567 (S.D. 1994) (summary judgment standards; genuine issue must be shown)
Sommervold v. Grevlos, 518 N.W.2d 733 (S.D. 1994) (negligence standard; ordinary care requirement)
Fleege v. Cimpl, 305 N.W.2d 409 (S.D. 1981) (abnormally dangerous activity factors (Restatement §520))
Barger v. Chelpon, 60 S.D. 66 (S.D. 1932) (res ipsa loquitur standard and sparing application)