Lamprecht v. Schluntz

870 N.W.2d 646 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, his brother (Gerald), and their employee, Christopher Joppa, were harvesting wheat. They were doing 'back-landing' in the wheatfield. D testified that 'as soon as the grain cart pulled up,' he saw a 'flash . . . underneath the tractor.' It just exploded. D called the fire department immediately, and they drove their respective pieces of farm equipment to the road. The fire spread 'like gasoline.' They tried making firebreaks, but the effort was futile. D's property was located 2 miles south and half a mile west of P's farm. P had gone to get a truck, and when he returned, he saw the fire. P attempted to shred his crops to make a firebreak. It was futile. Kresser, the fire chief testified that a field fire can sometimes start when a 'bearing goes out or gets hot or something of that sort, and somebody can drive in a field, an exhaust pipe can start it. At that time, D thought the fire was caused by an electrical short on the tractor. Kresser did not examine the tractor because by the time the fire was under control enough to where he felt comfortable leaving the scene, the tractor was no longer in the field and D 'wasn't around.' Joppa had no idea of what caused the fire. When D was asked if he agreed that wheatfields do not typically spontaneously combust. Joppa testified that he had seen two wildfires start during harvest; one of those was started by a bearing that 'went out in the combine' and 'overheated and started the fire.' Joppa agreed that fires in wheatfields are not normal occurrences, although 'they do have spontaneous combustions' caused by too much heat. Ps filed a complaint for negligence for failing to properly maintain and repair the farming machinery and res ipsa loquitur. A summary judgment hearing was held on September 29, 2014. A summary judgment hearing was held. The court concluded res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was not sufficient evidence from which reasonable persons could find it more likely than not that there was negligence on the part of Ds. D got the summary judgment, and P appealed.