The plaintiff's highway service centre was damaged by a fire originating in an exterior neon sign.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, a company that serviced signs and lights at the centre, alleging it should have warned the plaintiff about the risk of an electrical fire due to improper installation and aging components.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant's technicians had never worked on the specific sign in question or observed its faulty assembly.
Furthermore, the court held that the defendant did not owe a positive duty to warn the plaintiff of the danger of an electrical fire, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable in the context of their limited service relationship.
