## Facts

- An insured homeowner’s garage was destroyed by a fire that began in a riding lawnmower.
- The homeowner and his brother (Robert D. Mathew) lived across the street from each other and routinely took turns mowing both lawns; the homeowner was out of town.
- Mathew went to the homeowner’s garage, moved an approximately eight-year-old Toro riding mower (reportedly in good mechanical condition), checked the fuel level, and refueled it to about three-quarters full using a funnel.
- Mathew left for about twenty minutes, returned, started the mower in the garage, and observed flames in the engine area under the hood.
- Mathew shut off the engine, opened the hood, and attempted to smother a small flame under the gas tank with towels; the fire grew and gasoline began spewing.
- Believing the mower might explode if moved, Mathew ran to call the fire department; when he returned, the garage was engulfed and ultimately destroyed.
- The homeowner’s insurer paid the loss and, as subrogee, sued Mathew for negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a legal conclusion that Mathew breached the duty of reasonable care in refueling, starting, or operating the mower in the garage.
2. Whether Mathew’s actions during the fire were negligent, or were reasonable under a sudden emergency not of his own making.
3. Whether the trial court erred in overruling the insurer’s motion to reconsider after entering judgment for Mathew.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the bench-trial judgment for Mathew.
- The court held the insurer appealed from a negative judgment and failed to show the evidence was uncontradicted and permitted no reasonable inference supporting the trial court’s finding of no negligence.
- The court concluded the trial court could reasonably find Mathew exercised due care before the fire and responded reasonably once the emergency arose.
- The denial of the motion to reconsider was affirmed as consistent with the supported judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence turns on whether the defendant acted as an ordinarily prudent person would under the same or similar circumstances.
- A person confronted with a sudden emergency not of the person’s own making is not judged by hindsight or required to make perfect choices; liability depends on whether the response was reasonable under the emergency conditions.
- On appeal from a negative judgment, the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or assess credibility and will reverse only when the evidence is uncontradicted and supports no reasonable inference for the judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendant because the evidence allowed a reasonable finding that he acted with ordinary care in refueling and starting the mower and that, once the fire erupted, his attempts to extinguish it and decision to retreat and summon help were reasonable under a sudden emergency; the insurer therefore could not overturn the negative judgment.


Ind. Consol. Ins. Co. v. Mathew, 402 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)