Motion for summary judgment granted where plaintiff fails to develop expert opinions that fires were such as did not ordinarily occur if those controlling the products exercised proper care.

The court granted the moving defendants' motion for summary judgment were the plaintiff, which relied on a theory of res ipsa loquitur, did not offer a basis upon which negligence could be inferred as to any defendant. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff lacked evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the "acts, omissions, or products for which the moving defendants would be responsible caused the fires." The court noted that the plaintiff's experts did not theorize as to the specific cause of either fire. The plaintiff appealed. The court noted that the application of res ipsa loquitur would be improper due to the plaintiff's "failure to develop expert opinions that supported any inferences of negligence against the moving defendants or suggested that the fires were such as did not ordinarily occur if those controlling the fryers exercised proper care."

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012