Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Citation
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Parent Document
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-11-14
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
Full Text
1,150 charsBut the Winklers failed to offer substantial evidence of an electrical origin of the fire which destroyed their trailer home. The only expert testimony which the Winklers presented was that of Mr. Albus, who stated that the fuse box was in the area of the fire’s point of origin. Mr. Albus made clear that there is a difference between the origin or location of the fire and the cause of the fire. Mr. Albus testified as to shorting, arcing and beading of wires in the fuse box, but gave no explanation of the significance of this evidence as related to the origin or cause of the fire. Mr. Albus never expressed an opinion that the fire was conclusively or even probably caused by any problem in the electrical system on the premises. Instead, he merely stated that he could not “eliminate” an electrical cause of the fire. Mr. Albus’ conclusion on the cause of the fire, which he stated repeatedly, was that he had no opinion. Expert testimony that an act or omission of a defendant was a possible factor in causing a fire is not sufficient to make a submissible case. Shackelford v. West Central Elec. Coop., Inc., 674 S.W.2d 58, 62 (Mo.App.1984).