Blasius v. Angel Automotive

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseRes Ipsa LoquiturSummary JudgmentIndiana lawvehicle fireexpert testimony

Facts

Blasius hired Angel Automotive to make his used Ford Excursion safe and reliable, and the shop performed extensive work that required disconnecting and reconnecting multiple fluid systems, including fuel and brake-related components. After Blasius picked up the vehicle and drove it about 200 miles home, he reported performance problems, and the next day the vehicle caught fire after about 12 miles of driving while towing a trailer. Blasius observed smoke from the vents, brake failure, and burning diesel fuel running along the bottom and sides of the vehicle. His expert, Hooker, opined that the most likely scenario was a leak in a fluid system worked on by Angel Automotive that contacted a heated exhaust component, with diesel fuel or brake fluid likely being the first fuel ignited.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that Angel Automotive's repair work proximately caused the vehicle fire. Whether Blasius could also rely on res ipsa loquitur even though the vehicle was in his possession when it ignited.

Rule

Under Indiana law, proximate cause is an essential element of negligence and includes causation in fact and scope of liability; it must rest on provable facts showing reasonable certainty or probability, not mere speculation. At summary judgment, evidence is sufficient if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party, and expert testimony need not use precise legal phrasing if its fair import supports probable causation. Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when the plaintiff shows that the injuring instrumentality or reasonably probable causes were under the defendant's control and that the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen if proper care is used; control does not require physical possession at the exact moment of injury if the defendant was the last person in control and the likelihood of other causes is sufficiently reduced.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Indianapolis, Nora Patel hired Riverbend Diesel Works to overhaul her pickup’s fuel-delivery and brake systems, which required disconnecting and reconnecting multiple fluid lines. After she drove the truck about 180 miles home, it began smoking the next morning, and she saw burning fluid running beneath the chassis before the truck caught fire. Her fire investigator testified that the most likely scenario was a leak in a recently reassembled fluid system that contacted a hot exhaust component, though he could not identify with certainty whether the first ignited fluid was diesel or brake fluid.

If the shop moves for summary judgment on the ground that Nora cannot prove causation without identifying the exact fluid that ignited first, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that proximate cause must rest on provable facts showing reasonable certainty or probability, not speculation, but the plaintiff need not prove the exact fluid that ignited first when the defendant manipulated all likely fluid systems. At summary judgment, the question is whether any reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant. An expert opinion that a recently reassembled fluid system leak was the most likely cause, coupled with the plaintiff’s observations, is enough to reach the jury.