## Facts

- Arthur and Linda Lamprecht owned farmland and improvements adjacent to land farmed by brothers Brent and Gerald Schluntz in Furnas County, Nebraska.
- During a hot, windy June 2012 wheat harvest, a Schluntz employee operated a Schluntz-owned tractor with an attached grain cart near a combine.
- Brent Schluntz noticed a fire under the tractor and signaled the operator to move the tractor out of the field; the fire spread through the wheat field and onto the Lamprechts’ property.
- The fire burned roughly 1,200 acres and damaged the Lamprechts’ machinery, land, crops, and structures.
- A fire chief reported Brent stated he was unsure of the cause but suspected an electrical short; Brent later found a burned wire under the tractor.
- Deposition testimony indicated field fires can be started by hot components on farm equipment and can occur during farming operations without negligence.
- The record reflected the Schluntzes regularly maintained and serviced the tractor and related equipment.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur permitted an inference that the Schluntzes were negligent based on a fire originating under their tractor and spreading to the Lamprechts’ property.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding Arthur Lamprecht’s affidavit from the summary judgment record.
3. Whether, viewing admissible evidence favorably to the Lamprechts, a genuine issue of material fact existed that precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Schluntzes.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the Lamprechts failed to show the fire was the type of occurrence that ordinarily would not happen absent negligence.
- The court upheld exclusion of Arthur Lamprecht’s affidavit as containing inadmissible legal conclusions rather than admissible facts.
- Without res ipsa loquitur or other sufficient evidence of specific negligence, no triable issue existed and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and admissible evidence show no genuine issue of material fact or reasonable inferences, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.
- Res ipsa loquitur is a procedural doctrine allowing (but not requiring) an inference of negligence only if: (1) the event ordinarily would not occur without negligence, (2) the instrumentality was in the defendant’s exclusive control, and (3) the defendant offers no sufficient explanation.
- The mere occurrence of a fire does not, by itself, support an inference of negligence; where the record shows such fires can occur without negligent maintenance or operation, the first res ipsa element is not satisfied.
- Affidavits opposing summary judgment must contain admissible factual assertions; conclusory statements asserting negligence are not competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the negligence action because an unexplained field fire starting near farm equipment, without more, did not satisfy the threshold requirement for res ipsa loquitur, and the plaintiffs’ remaining admissible evidence—including an affidavit containing legal conclusions—failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on specific negligence.


Lamprecht v. Schluntz, 23 Neb. App. 335, 870 N.W.2d 646 (Neb. Ct. App. 2015)