Higgins (P) suffered property damage from a gas explosion in a building he owned. As part of its defense, the gas company (D) presented evidence that one of its employees had approached the leak with a flashlight. The explosion occurred while the employee was in close proximity to the leak, and it was presumed that the flashlight was destroyed. D introduced a similar flashlight into evidence, claiming that it was impossible for the flashlight to have created a spark which would have caused the explosion. Also in evidence was the fact that an oil stove was burning in the building at the time of the explosion. P claimed that a spark from the flashlight caused the explosion. While deliberating the verdict, the jury requested and was allowed to have the flashlight in the room with them. They specifically found that the explosion was caused by a spark from the flashlight, and found for P. D moved for a new trial. Its motion was granted on the grounds that it was error for the court to send the flashlight into the jury room. P appeals.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.