This is being provided as an educational material only and all names have been removed to avoid embarrassing any party. It is being presented solely because the court recognized both the importance of NFPA 921 and that of Confirmation/Expectation Bias. If you want to read the whole case, you can find it below.


SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Case No. CIV524209
(Consolidated with CIV531364)



…The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof in establishing that the subject RV fire was caused by any negligent act or omission of Defendant, or by a defect found in the RV or its component parts. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' fire and origin expert Dr. XXX (a) did not have adequate foundation for his theory of causation in this case; and (b) was not credible. The Court, as the finder of fact, therefore rejects Dr. XXX's testimony in total. See, Howard v. Owens Corning Illinois, supra (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 621; Ortzman v. Van Der Waal (1952) 114 Cal. App. 2d 167, 170-172. (Even where unopposed, the finder of fact may reject an expert opinion "in its entirety," so long as the rejection of the testimony is not "arbitrary.")

…
Dr. XXX opined that the XXX refrigerator found in Plaintiffs' XXX-brand RV overheated due to a blockage in the system, causing the "soft port" plug located at the back of the refrigerator to release a mix of flammable gases in the rear of the refrigerator cabinet to travel downward to meet the propane flame at the bottom of the back of the refrigerator, and cause an "explosion," that then started the fire. The Court finds Dr. XXX's testimony and opinions unpersuasive for the following reasons:

Dr. XXX's opinions were not supported by the physical evidence in this case. Further, Dr. XXX's opinions were not supported by any testing, studies, or simulations that would corroborate his "hypothesis" of how the subject fire occurred. (10/16/18 RT 35:10-22) (10116/18 RT 48:13-18). Instead, it appears that Dr. XXX conducted an investigation focused on confirming his ultimate conclusion that the subject fire was caused by an "overheat" situation in the XXX refrigerator found in Defendant's RV. Further, the Court finds the testimony and opinions of Dr. XXX unreliable, as he failed to perform the appropriate full fire investigation steps as set forth in the NFPA 921.

*Did not perform a flame vector analysis (10116/18 RT 21:6-16)
*Did not perform any debris removal (10/16/18 RT 20:9-26)
*Did not prepare a depth of char analysis (10/16/18 RT 23: 10-18)
*Did not conduct arch mapping (10/16/18 RT 24:6-17)
*Did not perform any excavation, examination and reconstruction of the scene as required (10/15/18 RT 88:22-26)
*Did not prepare a fire pattern diagram or analysis. (10/15/18 RT 90:12-23)

The Court finds unpersuasive Dr. XXX's explanation as to why he did not perform testing or conduct a more traditional fire investigation pursuant to NFPA 921. Dr. XXX admitted he had the ability to X-ray the subject XXX refrigerator to determine whether there was a "blockage" in the system, but chose not to do so because the results would not be "dispositive." It is the Court's understanding, however, based on Dr. XXX's own testimony, and the testimony of Defendant's fire and origin expert XXX, that there is rarely, if ever, a single piece of evidence in a fire and origin investigation that proves "dispositive" in the determination of cause. Dr. XXX's further explanation as to why he did not conduct a full fire investigation, pursuant to NFPA 921, was that he felt these standards were unnecessary for him to render a conclusion as to the origin and cause. This is very troubling to the Court. It suggests that Dr. XXX conducted an investigation which focused, at the outset, solely on the refrigerator as the cause of the fire, in violation of NFPA 921.

…
When the confusing nature of Dr. XXX's testimony is considered, along with his failure to follow the guidelines set forth in NFPA 921, including the "dig out" required by the NFPA standards, and misidentification of certain evidence, the Court can only conclude that the opinion is untrustworthy. Accordingly, this Court finds Dr. XXX's testimony is unreliable.

…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2019 06:16PM by Chris Bloom, CJBFireConsultant.