## Facts

- A fire started in the basement of a Plattsmouth, Nebraska bar and spread, damaging nearby real and personal property owned by Lee and Amy Larsen and their business.
- The property owners sued the entities associated with the bar and premises, alleging negligent servicing and maintenance of basement mechanical equipment, including a boiler and water heater.
- The fire damage and demolition prevented a complete origin-and-cause investigation of the structure.
- Plaintiffs’ expert, Duane Wolf, opined the fire began in basement mechanical equipment and probably originated in the boiler, and that regular servicing and replacement would have prevented the fire.
- Wolf focused on an alleged absence of a low-water cutoff that could permit a “dry fire,” but admitted a sudden loss of water could also cause a dry fire even with proper inspection.
- Defendants’ expert, Kenneth Ward, criticized Wolf’s approach as inconsistent with NFPA-based origin-and-cause methodology because Wolf did not systematically rule out alternative causes and could not eliminate many potential ignition sources.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding plaintiffs’ fire-cause expert testimony as unreliable under Nebraska’s Daubert/Schafersman standards.
2. Whether, after exclusion of the expert testimony, summary judgment for defendants was proper due to insufficient evidence of proximate causation.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of Wolf’s causation opinions.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Wolf’s methodology unreliable because it depended on assumptions and lacked a reasoned elimination of alternative causes.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants because, without admissible expert testimony, plaintiffs could not present evidence permitting a fact-finder to reasonably conclude defendants’ negligent maintenance proximately caused the fire.

## Legal Principles

- Expert causation testimony must be based on scientifically valid reasoning or methodology and a reliable application of that methodology to the case facts; the trial court serves as a gatekeeper under Daubert and Schafersman.
- In fire-origin litigation, a reliable origin-and-cause analysis generally requires identifying the area of origin and, as far as reasonably possible, eliminating alternative potential causes consistent with accepted investigative standards (including NFPA guidance).
- When causation turns on technical matters beyond common experience, plaintiffs generally must produce admissible expert testimony; otherwise, a jury finding of proximate cause would rest on speculation.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element such as proximate causation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the exclusion of plaintiffs’ fire-cause expert for unreliable methodology and affirmed summary judgment because, without admissible expert evidence, plaintiffs could not prove that defendants’ alleged negligent maintenance caused the fire and resulting damages.


Larsen v. 401 Main St., Inc., 923 N.W.2d 710 (Neb. 2019)