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

A small fire broke out in the pressure washer room of P's pig farrowing facility. P contracted with D to add and install a second power washer with a new venting system and chimney installed. D recommended Pipestone Plumbing and Heating (PP&H) for the venting and chimney work. PP&H provided a price quote to D. D included the price of PP&H's quote in D's quote. On March 21, 2002, a second fire ignited above the ceiling of the pressure washer room, near the exhaust chimney. P sued D. The trial court permitted testimony regarding: an expert's pretrial preparations made after his deposition; the existence of non-causal building code violations in the chimney installation; the power washer manufacturer's recommendation that a more insulated type of chimney be used; a different fire in 1999 which resulted from PP&H's installation work; and, a theory of ignition called 'pyrolysis.' Both parties concede that PP&H was an independent contractor. P failed to install attic shields which was a direct cause of the fire and also and also failed to meet code requirements for other parts of the work which were not the cause of the fire. D wanted to exclude the evidence of the code violations as they had not caused the fire and to exclude evidence of another fire caused by PP&H's work caused by a different issue. The court denied the requests. D was found liable and appealed.

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.