Opinion
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1971.
Michael M. Laden, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Sheldon, Bayer, McLean & Glasman, Richard H. Glasman, Denver, for defendant in error.
PIERCE, Judge.
Plaintiffs Edwin and Helen Welter were the owners of a mountain cabin located in Jefferson County; plaintiffs Charles and Joyce Chapman were the lessees of this property. At the time of the incident in question, defendant Sander was a guest of the Chapmans at the cabin.
Shortly after defendant arrived at the cabin, he and plaintiff Charles Chapman discussed building a fire in the fireplace. Although the evidence is in considerable dispute, there is testimony that the use of gasoline was discussed as an aid in building the fire. Defendant left the house, obtained a plastic jug of gasoline from his automobile, and returned to the hearth. During his absence, Chapman had attempted to start a fire. The exact whereabouts of Charles Chapman at the time of defendant's return is disputed, but defendant claimed that the wood in the fireplace appeared wet and that he had no knowledge that Chapman had attempted to start a fire. Defendant poured the gasoline onto the wood in the fireplace and a stream of gas, ignited by an ember, spread flames to the jug. Defendant flipped the jug over his shoulder where it landed on the floor and spilled on the carpeting. Defendant kicked the flaming jug across the room and out a door, but by that time the flames had spread throughout the room and eventually consumed the entire house and its contents.
Plaintiffs then joined in this suit against defendant to recover damages for loss of the building and personal property as a result of the alleged negligence of defendant. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendant.
Of the several grounds alleged as error by plaintiffs, we find only one sufficiently meritorious to warrant discussion.
Plaintiffs complain that they should have been awarded a directed verdict as to the issue of defendant's negligence. We disagree.
The record clearly shows sufficient questions of fact for submission to the jury. Since defendant testified that he had no awareness of any possible ignition factor being present, reasonable men might well conclude that defendant was not negligent in using gasoline on the wood. The fact that a fire followed the use of a dangerous substance does not raise a presumption of negligence warranting the direction of a verdict. Grange Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Golden Gas Co., 133 Colo. 537, 298 P.2d 950.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and DWYER, JJ., concur.