## Facts

- Audrey and Brenda Loyd owned a home that was destroyed by a fire on August 20, 1996.
- The August 1996 fire was the third fire at the home within roughly two years: one in 1994 and another earlier in 1996.
- After the 1994 fire, the Loyds hired Mobile Power and Light Company, Inc. to repair the home’s electrical system.
- The Mobile County Building Inspection Department issued Mobile Power the required permits for the post-1994 repair work.
- A building inspector had previously approved the overall plans, including the type and size of wiring and the installation methods to be used.
- After Mobile Power completed its repair work, the inspector examined and tested the electrical system, approved the activation of power, and later completed a final inspection in December 1994.
- In early 1996, a second fire occurred involving the home’s electrical panel box.
- After that early-1996 fire, a company other than Mobile Power replaced a fused disconnect; Mobile Power was not involved in that later repair.
- After the August 1996 fire, Safeco Insurance Company (the Loyds’ homeowner’s insurer) paid the insured loss.
- Safeco retained a technical consultant to evaluate the cause of the August 1996 fire.
- Safeco’s consultant testified that the fire was likely caused by one of three possible defects: (1) improper lug torque during installation, (2) mechanical failure of the screwed lug, or (3) thermal shrinkage of the conductor inside the lug.
- The Loyds and Safeco (as subrogee) sued Mobile Power, alleging Mobile Power’s negligent electrical repair work caused the August 1996 fire.
- The building inspector testified that Mobile Power’s work conformed to the National Electrical Code and did not violate the applicable standard of care.

## Issues

1. Whether Safeco presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that Mobile Power negligently repaired the electrical system and that its negligence probably caused the August 1996 fire, such that summary judgment was improper (including whether res ipsa loquitur supported an inference of negligence).

## Decision

- The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Mobile Power.
- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment.
- The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded, reinstating summary judgment for Mobile Power.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once the movant makes a prima facie showing, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence supporting each element of the claim.
- In a negligence action, the plaintiff must present evidence of a duty, breach of the applicable standard of care, proximate causation, and damages; proof that leaves causation or breach to speculation is insufficient to reach a jury.
- Circumstantial proof may support causation, but it must support a reasonable inference that the defendant’s conduct probably caused the harm, not merely that it could have caused it among other possibilities.
- Res ipsa loquitur permits, in limited circumstances, an inference of negligence when (1) the defendant had management and control of the instrumentality that caused the injury, (2) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, and (3) the plaintiff’s injury resulted from the accident.
- Where intervening events and later work by others affect the relevant electrical components, the “control” element for res ipsa loquitur is not satisfied, and an inference of negligence against the earlier contractor is not warranted.
- Evidence that the contractor obtained required permits and passed governmental inspections, coupled with testimony that the work complied with applicable code requirements, weighs against a finding of breach absent substantial contrary proof.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that Safeco failed to present substantial evidence that Mobile Power breached the standard of care or that its 1994 electrical repair probably caused the August 1996 fire, especially given the passage of time and the later, non-Mobile Power repair after the earlier 1996 panel-box fire. Because Safeco’s causation proof amounted to multiple possible explanations rather than a non-speculative link to Mobile Power’s negligence, and because res ipsa loquitur did not apply without the required control of the instrumentality, the trial court’s summary judgment for Mobile Power was proper and was reinstated.


Safeco Insurance Co. v. Mobile Power and Light Co., 810 So.2d 756 (2001)