State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Delta Beverage Group Inc.
401 F. App'x 955
5th Cir.2010Background
- This is a Louisiana-law tort case with federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- Fire on February 16, 2006 damaged Brian’s Superette and Talk of the Town; origin traced to a Pepsi cooler near the checkout.
- Plaintiffs LJMB, Inc., Talk of the Town, Brian and Amanda Wederstrandt, and State Farm sue Delta, Coca-Cola, and True; True and Coca-Cola settled, leaving Delta as the remaining defendant.
- Delta installed coolers; in 2004 Delta moved two Coca-Cola coolers to make room for two Pepsi coolers; January 2005 Delta repaired a Pepsi cooler.
- Experts agree the fire stemmed from an electrical malfunction caused by the Pepsi cooler being plugged into an extension cord, violating installation manual and NEC.
- There is no direct evidence who plugged the extension cord; possible culprits include Delta employees, Wederstrandt or his employees, or Coca-Cola employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can circumstantial evidence prove Delta causation? | Circumstantial evidence shows Delta more likely caused the plug-in. | Circumstantial evidence fails to exclude other reasonable hypotheses. | No; evidence does not exclude other reasonable causes; summary judgment for Delta affirmed. |
| Did Delta owe a duty to warn others about the extension cord risk? | Delta had a duty to warn Wederstrandt and employees. | Delta had no duty to warn Coca-Cola employees. | Delta owed no duty to warn Coca-Cola employees; failure to warn cannot be the causative factor. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact regarding electrical circuitry configuration merely assumed for argument? | Plaintiffs’ theory that circuitry caused the fire creates a fact issue. | Evidence does not establish Delta caused the circuit configuration issues. | Assumption of circuitry issue does not create a triable fact; the court assumes arguendo for purposes of analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Budden, 420 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2005) (affidavits lacking personal knowledge insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Cormier v. Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co., 969 F.2d 1559 (5th Cir. 1992) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge for summary judgment)
- LaBarge Pipe & Steel Co. v. First Bank, 550 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review for summary judgment; standard generally applied)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (genuine issue for trial exists if evidence could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict)
- Hesse v. Champ Serv. Line, 758 So.2d 245 (La. Ct. App. 2000) (sellers have duty to warn about dangers they know or should know)
- Lacey v. La. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 452 So.2d 162 (La. 1984) (circumstantial evidence in negligence must exclude other hypotheses)