Lincoln Property Co. No. 4 of Atlanta v. Stasco Plumbing, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48826,No. 3,48826,3 |
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 449,130 Ga.App. 767 |
| Parties | LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY NO. 4 OF ATLANTA et al. v. STASCO PLUMBING, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alston, Miller & Gaines, Michael A. Doyle, Ben F. Johnson, III, Atlanta, for appellants.
Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, William G. Tabb, III, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Lincoln Property Company No. 4 of Atlanta, Georgia, a partnership, and Crow, Pope & Carter Construction Co., Inc., a general contractor, sued Stasco Plumbing, Inc. for damages. It was alleged that Lincoln owned an apartment building and that Stasco, while performing its plumbing subcontract on the building, negligently caused the building to be burned and virtually destroyed by fire during that time while it was still under construction.
A jury trial was held, but the lower court directed a verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiff's evidence. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and plaintiff appeals. Held:
1. The trial judge felt that no direct proof had been offered to show that defendant caused the fire; and that the evidence raised only a mere conjecture that defendant caused same. Expert testimony was offered by a fire marshal who was on the scene within a few minutes after the alarm was given and also on the next morning, at which time he made an investigation as to the cause of the fire. He testified that the found only two sources from which the fire could have originated, to wir: the plumbing company's sweating of joints with plumbing torches inside the building; and trash fires or warming fires that had been used in the area outside of the building.
There was circumstantial evidence that the fire started inside the building; there was also evidence that Prestolite torches used by the plumbing company could have caused the fire.
In Kilgore v. Nasworthy, 124 Ga.App. 261, 262(6), 183 S.E.2d 481 (), there was no direct proof that defendants caused the fire, but there was circumstantial evidence to so indicate. In that case this court approved the trial judge's charge to the jury in this language: 'The evidence must be sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that the fire originated as claimed by the plaintiffs, and that if it raises only a mere conjecture as to whether the fire was or was not so occasioned, no recovery could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington Cabinet Co., Inc. v. Autry, 66602
...Ga.App. 863, 864(3), 216 S.E.2d 683 (1975). See also Johnson, supra, 157 Ga.App. at 321, 277 S.E.2d 312; Lincoln Property v. Stasco Plumbing, 130 Ga.App. 767, 768, 204 S.E.2d 449 (1974). 2. Appellant raises several objections to the trial court's granting of Filyaw's motion for a directed "......
-
Sugrue v. Flint Elec. Membership Corp., 59437
...appellants' damages were aggravated by Flint's alleged delay in cutting off the power. See generally, Lincoln Property v. Stasco Plumbing, 130 Ga.App. 767, 204 S.E.2d 449 (1974); Central Ga. Elec. v. Drake, 128 Ga.App. 560, 197 S.E.2d 389 (1973). " 'Questions of negligence and diligence and......
-
Dukes v. Burke, s. 52486 and 52487
...burning cotton bales. See Kilgore v. Nasworthy, 124 Ga.App. 261, 262(6), 183 S.E.2d 481; Lincoln Property Co. No. 4 of Atlanta v. Stasco Plumbing, Inc., 130 Ga.App. 767, 768, 204 S.E.2d 449. Questions of negligence are peculiarly a matter for jury determination. Garrett v. Royal Bros. Co., ......
-
Summers v. Milcon Corp.
...grant of motion for directed verdict see Kilgore v. Nasworthy, 124 Ga.App. 261, 183 S.E.2d 481; and Lincoln Property Co. No. 4 of Atlanta v. Stasco Plumbing,130 Ga.App. 767, 204 S.E.2d 449. The motion for summary judgment was improperly Judgment reversed. DEEN, P.J., and STOLZ, J., concur. ...