Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In July 2001, Swan Roofing LLC and a plumbing company were hired to install and reseal five roof drains to alleviate water collection on the roof of the Optimum Re Insurance Co. building. Swan cut holes into the roof and clamped the drains in place, then resealed the area around the drain. Robert Thomas, an Optimum employee who discovered significant flooding in the Optimum building, testified regarding his observations that the water was coming from the women’s restroom on the second floor. Thomas entered the restroom and saw a soaked ceiling tile clogging the sink drain, allowing running water to overflow. It appeared the tile had fallen from the ceiling directly into the sink, “kicking” the faucet on, and causing extensive water damage throughout the office building. The appellants sued for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, contending that Swan’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of damages to the Optimum building. Thereafter, Swan filed both a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment asserting the damages were so remotely connected there was no evidence to constitute causation, an element common to all three claims. The trial court granted Swan’s motion for summary judgment and ordered appellants take nothing. This appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellants’ brief does not appear to address the traditional summary judgment portion of Swan’s summary judgment motion. The appellants have set forth no issue, argument, or discussion challenging the traditional portion of the summary judgment motion; thus, they have not met their appellate burden to establish the trial court’s judgment was erroneous. Because summary judgment may have been granted on the unchallenged traditional portion of Swan’s motion, the court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Further, the evidence shows the unlikely chain of events where the wet ceiling tile hit the mirror at an angle, turned on the faucet and clogged the drain, and the running faucet flooded the building. These particular circumstances are too remotely connected with Swan’s conduct in installing the drain to constitute legal cause, the court concludes. OPINION:Carolyn Wright, J.; Wright, Richter and Mazzant, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.