Beavers v. Arkansas Housing Authorities Property & Casualty Self-Insured Fund, Inc., No. 18-1826 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After plaintiff and her four children died from smoke inhalation as a result of a kitchen fire in their apartment, administrators of their estate filed suit against the JHA, the manufacturer of the smoke alarm, the City, the fire department, and others. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Housing Authority Defendants and BRK, because no reasonable factfinder could determine, absent speculation, that the fire alarm failed to sound, causing the tragic deaths of plaintiffs; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the City Defendants, because there was lack of evidence showing that the firefighters' actions caused plaintiffs' deaths; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to strike the affidavit of a defense expert; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring one of plaintiff's counsel to pay for part of defendants' costs.
Court Description: Grasz, Author, with Loken and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts and Section 1983. Plaintiff Beavers' daughter and her four children died of smoke and soot inhalation in an apartment fire, and Beavers and the father of the children brought this negligence, products liability and Section 1983 action against the housing authority, the City and its fire department and the manufacturer of the smoke alarm used in the apartment; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the housing authority defendants and the manufacturer as no reasonable factfinder could determine, absent speculation, that the smoke alarm in the apartment failed to sound; with respect to plaintiff's Section 1983 action against the City defendants, there was insufficient evidence to show the firefighters' action were the cause of the deaths; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to strike the defense expert's affidavit which used the enhanced soot deposition methodology to show the alarm did sound, as the evidence showed the reliability and acceptance of the methodology in the fire investigation community; no error in requiring plaintiff's counsel to pay part of defendant's costs for a destructive examination of the smoke alarm after plaintiff's counsel had initially opposed such an examination, thereby necessitating a second test.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.