Category Archives: Expert Testimony

Judge Holding Documents

New Technology Sets Aside 1988 Arson Double Murder Conviction

Richard Wright was convicted in 1988 of setting a 1986 house fire that killed two teenage girls and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Mr. Wright long maintained his innocence and his initial appeal, based on the credibility of witness who testified that Wright confessed to the crime, was denied in 1995. Mr. Wright ultimately appealed to the New York State Supreme Court after his family hired an attorney who uncovered flaws with the origin and cause investigation conducted by arson investigators…

Continue Reading....
iStock_000001627771_Large

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Excludes Portion of Electrical Engineering Expert’s Fire Causation Opinion

On May 18, 2017, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled that a plaintiff’s electrical engineering expert could not testify regarding the origin of a fire and further excluded a portion of his testimony regarding fire cause. In State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Hartman Contractors, et al., 2017 WL 2180292 (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017), the defendant contractor installed framing and drywall to finish the basement of a newly constructed townhouse in Phoenixville, PA. Approximately eight years after this…

Continue Reading....
iStock_000016880645_Large

Federal Judge Denies Motion to Bar Fire Investigators’ Opinions in Strict Liability Lawsuit For Adherence to NFPA 921 and Industry Standards

In Harris Caprock Communications, Inc. v. Trippe Manufacturing Co. d/b/a Tripp Lite d/b/a Tripp Lite Holdings, Inc. (No. 15-0130), a Texas federal judge denied a motion to exclude the opinions of two fire investigators’ regarding the origin and cause of a fire in a strict products liability case, as the methodology employed was approved both within the industry as well as under the National Fire Protection Association Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (NFPA 921). In March 2013, Harris CapRock Communications sustained a fire that…

Continue Reading....
Toaster on fire

When a Product Expert Has No Experience with Product Allegedly Causing Fire: A Recent Exclusion and Considerations

An Illinois federal district judge recently excluded certain testimony offered by a plaintiff’s expert in a product liability case. The ruling offers an opportunity to stay abreast of recent expert witness rulings and the viability of an argument routinely used by the defense — that the plaintiff’s expert lacks any experience with the specific product that allegedly caused the fire. Although a common argument, it can give rise to a number of case-specific considerations. The Case The recent case of Ostrinsky v. Black & Decker

Continue Reading....
78397252

Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Exclusion of Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Engineers Regarding Cause of Vehicle Fire and Defective Design of Fuel Tank

On October 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert engineers regarding the cause of a vehicle fire and the defective design of the vehicle’s fuel tank were properly excluded. In Sims v. Kia Motors of Am., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18116 (5th Cir. Tex. Oct. 5, 2016), Henry Sims, Sr. was a passenger in the backseat of a 2010 Kia Soul when it collided with another car in an intersection, spun out and…

Continue Reading....

In a Split Decision, Seventh Circuit Affirms District Court’s Denial of Habeas Corpus in Arson/Murder Case

In 1993, Glenn Patrick Bradford, a then Evansville, Indiana police officer, was convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to 80 years in prison. Bradford filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court, but the Southern District of Indiana denied review last November. In Bradford v. Brown, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14260, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Bradford’s request. In a factually rich opinion, Judge Posner, joined by Judge Kanne, found that Bradford failed to present sufficient evidence to…

Continue Reading....
531050703

District Court in South Carolina Allows Parties’ Experts to Testify in Design Defect Case Involving Heater’s Ignition of Woman’s Clothing

On August 10, 2016, the District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that experts retained by a woman who suffered severe burns after a propane heater ignited her clothing could testify under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the Daubert standard regarding the origin and cause of the fire, the defectiveness of the heater’s design, and how an alternative design would have prevented the incident. Likewise, the district court ruled that an expert retained by the defendant manufacturer…

Continue Reading....

Cook County Prosecutors Agree Chicago Man Convicted of Arson in 1996 Should Get New Trial Due to Evolution in Fire Science

Two decades after Adam Gray was convicted of setting a fire that killed two people in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood, Cook County prosecutors agree that he deserves a new trial because advancements in fire science have “partially invalidated” expert testimony crucial to his conviction. In Gray’s case, police and prosecutors alleged that in March of 1993 the then 14 year-old became angry with a girl who rejected him and retaliated by igniting an accelerant he poured on the back porch of the home where she…

Continue Reading....
iStock_000001627771_Large

Fire Chief’s Testimony Ruled Admissible in Arson Case Despite Concession He’s Unqualified to Determine Cause of All Fires

A defendant sought to have his arson conviction overturned, arguing that the justice presiding at his trial committed a reversible error in permitting one of the state’s witnesses to give opinion testimony. In State v. Barnett (Case No. 1984 Me. LEXIS 784), the defendant claimed that a fire chief from the responding fire department should not have been permitted to testify that, while investigating the origin of a fire at the defendant’s home, he called in the state fire marshal’s office to assist because he…

Continue Reading....
78397252

District Court Allows Expert Testimony Attributing Cause of a House Fire to Careless Smoking

On May 20, 2016, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that an insurer’s fire expert could testify regarding a tenant’s smoking being the cause of a residential fire under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, No. 15-2651, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66481 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2016), the defendant tenant stated that he smoked a cigarette in the basement bedroom of a residence insured by Allstate and placed it in a can on a table…

Continue Reading....