Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lincoln Property Co. v. Stasco Plumbing, Inc.
Citations: 204 S.E.2d 449; 130 Ga. App. 767; 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1254Docket: 48826
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 4, 1974; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Lincoln Property Company No. 4 of Atlanta and Crow, Pope, Carter Construction Co., Inc. filed a lawsuit against Stasco Plumbing, Inc. for damages resulting from a fire that occurred while an apartment building was under construction. The plaintiffs alleged that the fire was caused by Stasco's negligence during its plumbing work. During the jury trial, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, stating there was insufficient direct evidence to establish that Stasco caused the fire, and that the evidence only suggested conjecture. An expert fire marshal testified that the fire may have originated from either the plumbing work involving torches inside the building or from warming fires outside. Although there was circumstantial evidence indicating the fire started inside, the trial judge concluded that this did not meet the standard for liability. The court referenced a precedent (Kilgore v. Nasworth) where circumstantial evidence was deemed sufficient for a jury to consider negligence. In this case, the trial judge did not allow the jury to determine the factual issues related to negligence. The appellate court found that circumstantial evidence could support the notion that the fire started inside the building due to the plumbing work, thereby ruling out the external warming fires as the cause. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to decide the case. The judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted. Judges Eberhardt and Pannell concurred with the decision.