In Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 630, there was a fire in the engine compartment of the plaintiffs' motor home; a battery cable had been pinched against the frame, causing a short. (Id. at p. 634.) The defendants repaired the motor home. (Id. at p. 635; see also id., at p. 639, fn. 5.) About six months later, there was a second fire, again in the engine compartment. (Id. at pp. 635-636.) This time, the motor home was completely destroyed. (Id. at p. 636.) The plaintiffs' expert witness, Robert Blair, testified that the second fire was most likely an electrical fire; it might also have been due to leaking hydraulic fluid, but he discounted this possibility, because one of the plaintiffs had inspected the motor home the day before the fire. (Id. at pp. 637-638.) The trial court granted a nonsuit on all of the plaintiffs' causes of action, including a cause of action for negligence. (Id. at pp. 633-634.) The appellate court reversed, holding (among other things) that there was sufficient evidence that "defendants' repair of the motor home was in fact negligent and a proximate cause of the second fire." (Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 637.) It explained: "Expert Blair's testimony the cause of the fire was electrical in nature was sufficient evidence to support an inference that defendants failed to use ordinary care in repairing the electrical wiring implicated in the fire. The fire started in the area where the wiring had been replaced in the course of defendants' repair. . . . . . . Blair's opinion of the electrical cause of the fire -- coupled with defendants' recent repair of the instrumentalities thought to be the most likely ('strongest probability') source of the second fire -- constitutes more than substantial evidence of defendants' negligence as the cause of the fire." (Id. at pp. 638-639.)