Four expert opinions added up to "no evidence" of a product defect in Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Solutions, et al. (Texas Supreme Court; Case No. 12-0987, May 8, 2015.)
The lawsuit arose out of a warehouse fire, and the plaintiffs sought to establish that a defect in a defendant's chemical manufacturing process caused the chemicals to catch fire, burning down the warehouse. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, obtaining a judgment for $8.37 million. The trial court entered judgment n.o.v., finding that the expert testimony was unreliable.
In affirming the decision of the district court, the Supreme Court found the "testimony of all four experts unreliable because the individual opinion testimony of at least two experts was unreliable and the remaining two experts based their opinions on the first two experts' unreliable opinions." While noting that "[n]o rule prohibits experts from using other experts' opinions to formulate new opinions based on their own expertise," the Court held that the opinions relied upon must be relevant and reliable.
Two fire origin experts relied upon the opinions of two chemists as to how the chemicals in question may have ignited. The chemists' opinions were not reliable, however, because, among other things, the chemists testified to a "possible" rather than "probable" cause of the fire.
While some circumstantial evidence was introduced as to the origin of the fire, to be successful on a manufacturing defect claim the plaintiff must identify a specific defect by competent evidence and rule out other possible causes of the damage. Expert testimony is required to satisfy that burden, and because the expert testimony was unreliable, there was "no evidence" of a manufacturing defect to support the jury's verdict.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
