Larsen v. 401 Main Street, 302 Neb. 454

On January 2, 2014, a fire began in the basement of the Quart House Pub and damaged adjacent property owned by Lee and Amy Larsen and Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc. (Plattsmouth Chiropractic).
Plattsmouth Chiropractic sued the Quart House entities, alleging negligent maintenance and inspection of mechanical equipment (boiler, water heater, compressors) in the basement caused the fire.
Plattsmouth Chiropractic designated mechanical engineer Duane Wolf as an expert on fire origin and cause; Quart House designated fire investigator Kenneth Ward and moved to exclude Wolf and for summary judgment.
Wolf reviewed documents but did not inspect the demolished scene; he opined the fire likely originated in the vicinity of the boiler (possibly the boiler, water heater, or compressors) but could not identify a specific causal failure or rule out electrical causes; he acknowledged his analysis did not follow NFPA 921 and that a postfire forensic inspection was typically required.
Ward testified that, because no investigators were allowed inside before demolition, no adequate scientific basis existed to determine the fire's origin or cause and that Wolf’s methodology did not comply with NFPA 921.
The district court excluded Wolf’s causation opinion as speculative under Daubert/Schafersman and granted summary judgment for Quart House; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Wolf’s causation testimony under Daubert/Schafersman	Wolf is qualified; his review and engineering opinion suffice to show fire likely originated from boiler/mechanical failure	Wolf’s opinion is speculative, not based on NFPA 921 methodology or postfire inspection; cannot reliably link cause to negligence	Court affirmed exclusion: methodology could not be properly applied and causation opinion was speculative
Sufficiency of evidence to survive summary judgment on negligence/causation	Circumstantial evidence (smoke above boiler, cold bar that night, Wolf’s opinion) creates genuine issue on cause and proximate causation	Without admissible expert causation, plaintiff cannot prove negligent maintenance proximately caused the fire; remaining expert says cause cannot be determined	Court affirmed summary judgment: absent admissible expert proof of causation, plaintiff’s evidence would require impermissible speculation

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (court must gatekeep expert reliability and relevance)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (Nebraska adoption of Daubert principles)
Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 300 Neb. 47 (trial court must assess validity and fit of expert methodology)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (standards for reviewing admissibility of expert testimony)
Hemsley v. Langdon, 299 Neb. 464 (trial court gatekeeping role under Daubert/Schafersman)
King v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Neb. 203 (expert opinion cannot be based on unsupported speculation)
Sparks v. M&D Trucking, 301 Neb. 977 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)