# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 14 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ran dy Rus se ll & Ant oi ne tt e Ru ss el l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W hi rlp oo l Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 12

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 17 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.A fir e de st ro y ed th e ho m e of Ran dy an d Ant oi ne tt e Ru ss el l. The Ru ss el ls fil ed

su it ag ai ns t W hi rlp oo l, al le gi ng th e fir e w a s c a u s ed by a de fect iv e refr ig erat or

W hi rlp oo l de si gn ed

, m an uf act ur ed

, an d so ld

. The jury fo un d in fav or of th e Ru ss el ls

. W hi rlp oo l ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th e Ru ss el ls ' ex pe rt wit ne ss di d no t us e a su ffi ci en tl y
rel ia bl e m et ho do lo gy, th e Ru ss el ls m ay no t in fer a pr od uc t de fect fro m ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce un de r Mi ss ou ri to rt la w, an d th e di st ric t co ur t e r r o ne ou sl y al lo wed th e 1

Ru ss el ls to in tro du ce ev id en ce of ot he r W hi rlp oo l refr ig erat or fir es

. Fo r th e reas on s
di sc us se d b el ow, we af

fir m

.

I

The fir e st art ed in th e Ru ss el ls ' I b e ria

, Mi ss ou ri, ho m e on Feb ru ary 6, 20 10

. The Ru ss el ls were in Cap e Gira rd eau , Mi ss ou ri, th at da y , an d no wit ne ss es to th e fir e

were rep or te d. Fi refi gh te rs fro m th e Bru m le y Vol un te er F i r e Dep art m en t an d th e
Ib eri a Fi re Dep art m en t res po nd ed to th e sc en e. The y tri ed to ex ti ng ui sh th e fir e bu t

ga ve up aft er ni ne ty m in ut e s

. Li e ut en an t Trai ni ng Offi cer Ton y Sm oo t, who

su pe rv is ed th e f

i r e r es po ns e, di d no t cal l th e St at e Fi re Mar sh al to in ve st ig at e th e

or ig in an d cau se of th e fir e be cau se he be li ev ed th e ho us e was "t oo far go ne ." In fact

, th e fir e at th e Ru ss el ls ' ho m e was a "t ot al bu rn " be cau se m os t co m bu s t i b l e s were

co ns um ed in th e fi re an d t he fir e ev en tu al ly self -ex ti ng ui sh ed . J.A. 46 3.

The Ru ss el ls ret ai ne d Larry Gig gy, a cert ifi ed fir e in ve st ig at or in Mi ss ou ri, to

de te rm in e th e or ig in an d cau se of th e fir e. Gig gy in te rv ie wed Mr. Ru ss el l reg ard in g

s e v e ral po ss ib le cau se s of th e fir e, in cl ud in g an ex te rn al woo d bu rn in g st ov e , t h e
ho us e's ho t wate r syste m , Mrs

. Ru ss el l's s mo ki ng ha bi ts

, can dl es an d ot he r op en

fla m es , sp ace he at ers , an d fla m m ab le ch emi c a l s. Gig gy th en walk ed aro un d th e
ho us e twi ce, ta ki ng ph ot og rap hs th e se co nd ti m e. He ex am in ed th e rem ai ni ng st ud s

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-le ft on th e co nc ret e wall in th e ba se m en t. Not ic in g th e st ud s in th e m id dl e pa rt of th e

wall were m or e si gn ifi can tl y bu rn ed th an th os e on th e si de s, he bel ie ve d th e m id dl e

of th e ho us e was a "s us pe ct area ." He fo un d an d ex am in ed se ve ral ap pl ia nc es , i n c l u d i n g th e ba ck up el ect ric fu rn ace, was he r an d dr y er, an d ai r ha nd li ng un it

, b u t

co ul d no t fin d an y id en ti fia bl e fir e pa tt ern s. He no ti ced no t h i n g u nu su al ab ou t th e

in te rn al wiri ng in th e ho us e an d el im in at ed th e ci rcu it br eak er pa ne l as a po te nt ia l

cau se

.

Gig gy fo un d th e st ov e an d m ic ro wav e, an d aft er ex am in in g th em , no ti ced th ey

were da m ag ed m or e he av il y on th ei r le ft s id es , as v ie wed fro m th e fro nt . He as ke d

Mr. Ru ss el l wha t ha d be en lo cat ed to th e le ft of th e st o v e an d m ic ro wav e. Mr.

Ru ss el l to ld hi m th e refr ig erat or ha d b e e n t h e r e

. Thi s su gg es te d to Gig gy th e fir e

sp read fro m th e refr ig erat or to th e ad jacen t ap pl ia nc es , b u r n i n g th ei r le ft si de s fir st

an d th ereb y

cau si ng gre at er d am ag e. He th en lo cat ed th e refr ig erat or at th e bo tt om

of th e de br is

, u n li ke th e st ov e an d m ic ro wav e, whi ch di d no t ha ve de br is on to p of

th em

. Thi s di ffer en ce le d Gig gy to be li ev e th e refr ig erat or fel l th ro ug h th e flo or pr io r

to th e ti m e th e st ov e an d m i c r o w a v e f e l l th ro ug h th e flo or

. The on ly pa rts of th e

refr ig erat or Gig gy co ul d id en ti fy were so m e of th e co ol in g co il s, s o me pa rts of th e

fram e, an d th e co m

pr es so r, th e pu m

p th at ci rcu la te s refri ge ran t th ro ug ho ut th e un it

. The m et al ap pe ared th in ne r on th e bo tt om pa rt of th e refr ig erat or fram e, whi ch wou ld

ha ve be en cl os e to th e co m pr es so r

. H e al so no ti ced al th ou gh th e refr ig erat or was
de st ro y ed al m os t be y on d reco gn it io n, th e ne arb y ap pl ia nc es co ul d st il l be reco gn iz ed

fo r th ei r in te nd ed fu nc ti on an d di d no t bu rn as si gn ifi can tl y as th e refr ig erat or

. Thi s

in di cat ed to hi m th e refr ig erat or ha d bu rn ed lo ng er an d ho tt er th an th e ot he r

ap pl ia nc es

. Afte r co ns id eri ng al l th es e fact or s, Gig gy co nc lu de d th e fir e st art ed in th e

refr ig erat or

.

The Ru ss el ls als o re ta in ed Carl Mart in , a reg is te red pr of es si on al en gi ne er, t o

pe rfo rm a cau se in ve st i g a t i o n an d en gi ne eri ng an al y si s. Mar ti n rel ie d on Gig gy's

de te rm in at io n of th e refr ig erat or as th e area of or ig in

. Mar ti n ob se rv ed th e su rfac es

-3

-on th e in si de of th e co m pr es so r co m

pa rtment ex pe rie nc ed gr eat he at ex po su re an d th e

co m pr es so r win di ng s were no t en erg iz ed whe n th e fir e at ta ck ed th e co m pr es so r. Thi s

su gg es te d th e co m

pr es so r was no t wor ki ng at th e ti m e of th e fir e. Mar ti n al so no ti ced

th e si d e w a l l su rfac es of th e co m pr es so r ha d su ffer ed su bs ta nt ia l da m ag e, whi ch

wou ld no t oc cu r ha d th e fir e or ig in at ed in so m e ot he r so ur ce. The se ob se rv at io ns le d

Mar ti n to co nc lu de th e fir e was cau se d by an el ect ric al m al f u nc ti on in si de th e

co m pr es so r.

The Ru ss el ls fil ed su it ag ai ns t W hi rlp oo l al le gi ng a de fect iv e refr ig erat or
de si gn ed

, m an uf

act ur ed

, an d so ld by W hi rlp oo l cau se d th e fir e. The ir cl ai m di d no t

id en ti fy a sp eci fi c de fect

, bu t in st ead in ferr ed th e ex is te nc e of a de fect fro m
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. At th e cl os e of di sc ov ery, W hi rlp oo l m ov ed to st r i k e t h e

op in io ns of Larry Gig gy an d Carl Mar ti n, arg ui ng th ey di d no t m eet th e st an da rd fo r
ad m is si bi li ty th e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed in Dau be rt v. Mer rel l Dow Ph arm aceu ti cal s,

In c., 50 9 U.S. 57 9 (1 99 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns , as well as

W hi rlp oo l's rel at ed m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. W hi rlp oo l ren ewed it s m ot io n to

st rik e sh or tl y

be fo re tria l and req ue st ed th e d is tri ct co ur t h ol d a he ari ng pu rs ua nt to

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 10 4( a) to res ol ve th e pr el im in ary qu es ti on reg ard in g Gig gy

an d Mar ti n's qu al ifi cat io ns to te st ify. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d ag reed in st ead

to ev al ua te th e rel ia bi li ty of ex pe rt wit ne ss te st im on y a s i t cam e in

. At th at ti m e,

W hi rlp oo l al so fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e to pr ev en t th e Ru ss el ls fro m of feri ng ev id en ce

of ot he r si m il ar in ci de nt s of fir es al le ge d to ha ve st art ed in or aro un d W hi rlp oo l

refr ig erat or s. The co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d req ui red th e Ru ss el ls to ap pr oa ch th e
be nc h a nd rece iv e p erm is si on be fo re o ffer in g s uc h e vi de nc e.

At tri al

, Gig gy te st ifi ed reg ard in g h i s i n v e s t ig at io n of th e fir e sc en e, hi s

co nc lu si on , an d hi s m et ho ds

. Dur in g cro ss -ex am in at io n, W h i r l p o o l's at to rn ey s

qu es ti on ed Gig gy ab ou t th e ex te nt to whi ch he ha d em pl oyed Nati on al Fi re Pro te ct io n

Ass oc ia ti on (NFPA) 92 1, Gui de fo r Fi re an d Exp lo si on In ve st ig at io ns

. The NFPA

is a no np ro fit or ga ni zat io n de di cat ed to fir e pr ev en ti on , an d NFPA 92 1 is a do cu m en t

-4

-in te nd ed to "e st ab li sh gu id el in es an d reco m m en da ti on s fo r th e sa fe an d syste m at ic

i n v e s t i g a t io n or an al y si s of fir e an d ex pl os io n in ci de nt s." NFPA 92 1 § 1.2 .1

. W hi rlp oo l pr es en te d a tra ns cri pt fro m a de po si ti on Gig gy ga ve in a di ffer en t cas e in

20 08 in whi ch he st at ed NFPA 92 1 is th e st an da rd to whi ch fir e i n v e s t i g a to rs are
he ld

. In hi s tri al te st im on y in th is cas e, ho wev e r , G i g g y main ta in ed NFPA 92 1 is

m erel y a gu id e fo r or ig in -an d- cau se in ve st ig at io ns , rat he r th an a st an da rd

. W hi rlp oo l

ag ai n ren ewed it s m ot io n to st rik e Gig gy's op in io n at th e co nc lu si on of hi s te st im on y

. The di st ric t co ur t st at ed it be li ev ed Gig gy's qu al ifi cat io ns un de r Dau be rt were "p ret ty

sh ak y ," b ut de ni ed th e m ot io n.

Carl Mar ti n al so te st ifi ed reg ard in g hi s th eo ry of th e fir e's or ig in

. In res po ns e

to a qu es ti on reg ard in g th e si gn ifi can ce of th e la ck of po wer in th e co m pr es so r at th e

ti m e of th e fir e, h e st at ed , " It te ll s m e th at th e fir e or ig in at es wit hi n th e co m pr es so r

co m pa rtment an d pr og res se s ou twar d fro m th at lo cat io n. And ob vi ou sl y it 's no t a bi g

se cret he re. The th eo ry is in th e pa st th ere ha ve be en pr ob le m s wit h t h e rel ay

co nt act or s." J.A. 59 0. W hi rlp oo l im m ed ia te ly ob jecte d an d arg ue d th e Ru ss el ls ha d

in tro du ced si m il ar in ci de nt s ev id en ce in vi ol at io n of th e co ur t's in li m in e or de r.

W hi rlp oo l m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

, or in th e al te rn at iv e, to st rik e th e co m m en t an d gi ve

a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n to th e jury. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r a m is tri al bu t

gr an te d t he m ot io n t o s tri ke an d i ns tru ct ed th e jury to d is reg ard Mart in 's c om m en t.

At th e co nc lu si on of tri al

, th e jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of th e Ru ss el ls

in th e am ou nt of $1 ,37 7,5 50 .00

. W hi rlp oo l fil ed a ren ewed m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as

a m at te r of la w, or in th e al te rn at iv e, fo r a ne w tri al

. I t a l s o mo v ed on ce ag ai n to

st rik e Gig gy an d Mar ti n's te st imo n y. Th e co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns

. W hi rlp oo l

ap pe al ed

.

-5

-II

W hi rlp oo l arg ue s Gig gy's t e s t i mon y is in ad m is si bl e, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

t h e r efo re erre d by ad m it ti ng it

, fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, Gig gy's fai lu re to em p l o y

NFPA 92 1 a ut om at ic al ly su bjec ts hi s exp ert op in io n to ex cl us io n. Seco nd

, Gig gy's

fai lu re to us e an y sc ie nti fi c m et hodo lo gy fo r hi s or ig in -an d- cau se in ve st ig at io n m ak es

hi s o pi ni on s u nr el ia bl e.

"Dec is io ns co nc ern in g th e ad m is si on of ex pe rt te st im on y li e wit hi n th e br oa d

di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d th es e d e c i si on s wil l no t be di st ur be d on ap pe al

ab se nt an ab us e of th at di sc ret io n." Pei tz m ei er v. Hen ne ss y In du s., In c., 97 F.3 d 29 3,

29 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). An ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs whe n a di st ric t co ur t: (1 ) do es no t

co ns id er a r el ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 )

co ns id e r s an d gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or ; or (3 )

co ns id ers al l an d on ly pr op er fact or s b u t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in
weig hi ng th os e fact or s. Dun n v. Nex gr il l In du st rie s, In c., 63 6 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 55 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ). In th e co nt ex t of ad m it ti ng ev id en ce, an ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs "o nl y
whe re th e erro r is cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l to th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g." Torb it v. Ry de r Sy s., In c., 41 6 F .3d 89 8, 9 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

A. NFPA 92 1

W hi rlp oo l arg ue s Gig gy's in ve st ig at iv e m et ho ds de vi at ed fro m NFPA 92 1 an d

th at de vi at io n req ui red th e di st ric t co ur t to ex cl ud e hi s te st im on y

. Acco rd in g to

W hi rlp oo l, Gig gy ack no wled ge d NFPA 92 1 is a m an da to ry in ve st ig at iv e pr oc ed ur e

in a 20 08 de po si ti on in an un rel at ed cas e in whi ch he sa id NFPA 92 1 is "t he st an da rd

of [s ic ] whi ch

, y ou kn ow, y ou 're he ld ." J.A. 46 0. In hi s in ve st ig at io n of th e Ru ss el ls '

ho m e, W hi rlp oo l co nt en ds Gig gy di d no t ta ke m an y of th e act io ns NFPA 92 1

reco m m en ds

, in cl ud in g co ns id eri ng an d el im in at in g ot he r po te nt ia l cau se s of th e fir e,

an al y zi ng bu rn pa tt ern s to de te rm in e th e area of or ig in

, an d in ve st ig at in g th e way in

-6

-whi ch th e fir e da m ag ed th e ho me' s e l e ct ric al ci rcu it s, a te ch ni qu e kn own as "ar c

m ap pi ng ." The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ex cl ud ed Gig gy's te st im on y fo r

hi s fa il ur e to co m

pl y wit h a m an da to ry

pro ced ur e.

W e di sa gr ee. W hi rlp oo l d o e s no t accu rat el y su m m ari ze ou r cas el aw on th is

po in t. W e ha ve he ld NFPA 92 1 qu al ifi es as "a rel ia bl e m et ho d en d o r s e d b y a

pr of es si on al or ga ni zat io n," Fi rem an 's Fu nd In s. Co

. v. Can on U.S.A., In c., 39 4 F.3 d

10 54 , 10 58 -5 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), bu t we ha ve no t he ld NFPA 92 1 is th e o nl y rel ia bl e

way to in ve st ig at e a fir e. Our NFPA 92 1 cas es st an d f o r t h e s i mp l e pr op os it io n an

ex pe rt who pu rp or ts to fo ll ow NFPA 92 1 m us t ap pl y it s co nt en ts rel ia bl y

. Pres le y v.
Lak ewo od Eng 'g, 55 3 F.3 d 6 3 8

, 6 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (aff irming th e di st ric t co ur t's

ex cl us io n of exp ert te st im on y be cau se th e ex pe rt "fai le d to fo ll ow . .

. th e st an da rd s

h e pu rp or te d to fo ll ow" ); Fi rem an 's Fu nd

, 39 4 F.3 d at 10 60 (aff irming th e di st ric t

co ur t's ex cl us io n of ex pe rt te st im on y be cau se th e ex pe rt "d id no t ap pl y th e pr in ci pl es

an d m et ho ds of NFP A 92 1 re li ab ly to t he fact s of th e cas e") . Accor di ng ly, Gig gy's

t e s t i mo n y c an on ly be ex cl ud ed on NFPA 92 1 gr ou nd s if he pu rp or te d to fo ll o w

NFPA 92 1 bu t di d no t rel ia bl y ap pl y it to th e rem ai ns of th e fir e at th e Ru ss el ls ' ho m e.

The reco rd sh ows Gig gy di d no t pu rp or t to ap pl y NFPA 92 1. W e ta ke Gig gy's

20 08 de po si ti on st at em en t to m ean on ly tha t NFPA 9 21 is a res pe ct ed in ve st ig at iv e

m et ho d, no t th at it is a m et ho d an in ve st ig at or m us t at te m pt to de pl oy in ev ery cas e,

in cl ud in g th is on e. Mo reo ve r, se ve ral as pe ct s of Gig gy's tri al te st im on y in di cat e he

di d no t pu rp or t t o a p p l y N F PA 92 1. Gig gy bl un tl y an d rep eat ed ly st at ed NFPA is

on ly a gu id e. J.A. 4 56 -6 0. He al so co nc ed ed he di d no t pe rfo rm m an y of th e st ep s

NFPA 92 1 reco m

m en ds a fi r e i n v e s t i ga to r ta ke

. Fu rth er, he te st ifi ed NFPA 92 1

can no t be us ed whe n a fir e le av es an in su f f i c i en t bu rn pa tt ern on th e st ru ct ur e th at

su st ai ne d th e fir e. Id

. at 50 2. A "t ot al b u r n " fir e do es no t le av e su ffi ci en t bu rn

pa tt ern s t o u se NFPA 92 1, i d. at 50 6, an d t he fir e at th e Ru ss el ls ' ho m e was a "t ot al

bu rn ." Id

. at 47 0. In ot he r wor ds

, Gig gy di d no t em pl oy NFPA 9 21 be cau se , gi ve n

th e ex te nt of th e de st ru ct io n, he be li ev ed he co ul d no t ap pl y th e gu id el in e. In li gh t

-7

-of th is ev id en ce, we are co nv in ced Gig gy di d no t at te m pt to em pl oy NFPA 92 1 in hi s

in ve st ig at io n, an d th eref

or e, hi s te st im on y m ay no t be ex cl ud ed fo r fai lu re to rel ia bl y

ap pl y it s co nt en ts

.

B. Rel ia bl e Me th od ol og y

W hi rlp oo l ne xt arg ue s Gig g y d i d n ot us e an y sc ie nt ifi c m et ho do lo gy
wha ts oe ve r in hi s in ve st ig at io n. In st ead

, he si m pl y "eyebal le d" th ree app li an ces he

id en ti fie d in th e de br is an d co nc lu de d th e m os t se ve rel y bu rn ed was th e a r ea of

or ig in

. Thi s te ch ni qu e ren de rs Gig gy's te st im on y li tt le m or e th an la y op in io n

"fo rm ul at ed m erel y up on ge ne ral ob se rv at io ns of th e ev id en ce an d ge ne ral sc ie nt ifi c

pr in ci pl es ." Pres le y , 55 3 F.3 d at 64 6. His te st im on y was th eref or e un rel ia bl e an d th e
di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d h av e ex cl ud ed it

.

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 70 2 g o v e r n s th e ad m is si bi li ty o f ex pe rt te st im on y

. It p ro vi de s:

A wit ne ss who is qu al ifi ed as an ex pe rt by kn owl ed ge , sk il l, ex pe rie nc e,
tra in in g, or ed uc at io n m ay te st ify in th e fo rm of an op in io n or ot he rwis e if: (a) th e ex pe rt' s sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal

, or ot he r sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge

w il l he lp th e tri er of fact to un de rs ta nd th e ev id en ce or to de te rm in e a fact in is su e; (b ) th e te st im on y is ba se d on su ffi ci en t fact s or da ta ; (c) th e
te st im on y is th e pr od uc t of rel ia bl e pr in ci pl es an d m et ho ds ; an d (d ) th e

ex pe rt ha s rel ia bl y ap pl ie d th e pr in ci pl es an d m et ho ds to th e fact s of th e

cas e.

Fed R. Evi d. 70 2. "Th e m ai n pu rp os e of Dau be rt ex cl us io n is to pr ev en t juri es fro m
be in g swa y ed by du bi ou s sc ie nt ifi c te st im on y ." In re Zurn Pex Pl um bi ng Pro ds

. Liab

. Lit ig

., 64 4 F.3 d 60 4, 61 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The di st r i c t co ur t pl ay s th e ro le of a

ga te ke ep er to "en su r[e] th at an ex pe rt' s te st im on y bo th res ts on a rel ia bl e fo un da ti on

an d is rel ev an t to th e ta sk at ha nd ." Kum ho Tire Co

. v. Ch arm ic ha el

, 52 6 U.S. 13 7,

14 1 (1 99 9) (q uo ti ng Dau be rt, 50 9 U.S. at 59 7)

. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t is en ti tl ed

-8

-to "g reat la ti tu de " in det erm in in g whet he r an ex pe rt m eet s th es e req ui rem en ts , Firs t

Uni on Nat'l Ban k v . Ben ha m , 42 3 F .3d 85 5, 8 61 (8t h C ir. 20 05 ), th e as su m pt io n o f

th e ga te ke ep e r r ol e is m an da to ry , no t di sc ret io na ry

. Dau be rt, 50 9 U.S. at 59 2- 93

. W he n m ak in g th e rel ia bi li ty a n d r e l ev an cy de te rm in at io ns , a di st ric t co ur t m ay

co ns id er: (1 ) whe th er th e th eo ry or te ch ni qu e can be or ha s be en te st ed ; (2 ) whe th er

th e th eo ry or te ch ni qu e ha s be en su bjec te d to pe er rev ie w or pu bl ic at io n; (3 ) whe th er

th e th eo ry or te ch ni qu e ha s a kn own or po te nt ia l erro r rat e an d st an da rd s co nt ro ll in g

th e te ch ni qu e's op erat io n; an d (4 ) whe th er th e th eo ry or t e c h ni qu e is ge ne ral ly

acce pt ed in th e sc ie nt i f

ic co m m un it y

. Id

. at 59 3- 94

. "Th is ev id en ti ary in qu iry is

m ean t to be fle xi bl e an d fact sp eci fic

, an d a co ur t sh ou ld us e, ad ap t, or reject Dau be rt

fact or s as th e pa rti cu la r cas e de m an ds ." Unr ei n v. Tim es av ers , In c., 39 4 F.3 d 10 08

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). "Th ere is no si ng le req ui rem en t fo r ad m is si bi li ty as lo ng as th e

pr o f f e r in di cat es th at th e ex pe rt ev id en ce is rel ia bl e an d rel ev an t." Id .; se e al so

Dau be rt, 50 9 U.S. at 5 94 ("Th e in qu iry en vi si on ed by Ru le 70 2 is

, we em ph as iz e, a
fle xi bl e o ne .").

In th e co nt ex t o f fi re i nv es ti ga ti on s, we h av e h el d e xp ert op in io ns for m ed on

th e ba si s of ob se rv at io ns an d ex pe rie nc e m ay m eet th is rel ia bi li ty th res ho ld

. Sh uc k

v. CNH Am eri ca, 49 8 F .3d 86 8, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Hick ers on v. Pri de Mo bi li ty

Pro ds

. Co rp ., 47 0 F.3 d 12 52

, 12 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). In Sh uc k, we affi rm ed th e
ad m is si bi li ty of th e te st im on y of a fir e cau sa ti on ex pe rt an d a m ech an ic al ex pe rt who

ru le d ou t oi l st arv at io n as th e cau se of a co m bi ne fir e. The ex pe rts ba se d th ei r

te st im on y on an in sp ect io n of th e co m bi ne an d ob se r v a t i o n o f a di sm an tl in g of th e

co m bi ne 's en gi ne

. The de fen da nt s arg ue d th e ex pe rts ' te st im on y was no t ba se d on a
rel ia bl e m et ho do lo gy be cau se th e y di d no t te st da m ag ed co m bi ne pa rts

, ex em

pl ar

co m bi ne pa rts

, or oi l fro m th e co m bi ne

. W e reject ed th at arg um en t an d he ld th e

e x p e r ts us ed rel ia bl e m et ho ds whe n th ey "o bs erv ed th e rel ev an t ev id en ce, ap p l i e d

t h e i r sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge , an d syste m at ic al ly in cl ud ed or ex cl ud ed po ss ib l e

th eo rie s of cau s a t i o n

. " Sh uc k, 49 8 F.3 d at 87 5. In Hick ers on , th e de fen da nt

ch al le ng ed th e pl ai nt iff

's ex pe r t ' s co nc lu si on a m ot or iz ed po wer sc oo te r cau se d a

-9

-ho us e fir e as to o sp ecu la ti ve be cau se th e ex pe rt f a il ed to el im in at e ot he r po te nt ia l
ig ni ti on so ur ces

. W e fo un d "n ot hi ng un re l i a b l e " i n th e ex pe rt' s m et ho do lo gy, in

whi ch he co n s i d e r e d b u rn pa tt ern s, id en ti fie d a po in t of or ig in

, an d el im in at ed as

man y al te rn at iv e cau se s of th e fir e as po ss ib le

. Hick ers on , 47 0 F.3 d at 12 57

. We 2

ha ve fo un d rel ia bi li ty in th es e cas es wit ho ut in si st in g up on rig id ad he ren ce to th e

Dau be rt fact or s. As ou r pr io r cas el aw in st ru ct s, we ha ve reac he d th es e co nc lu si on s by ex am in in g th e fact s of each in di vi du al cas e, co ns id eri ng th e Dau be rt fact or s to th e

ex te nt th ey fit th e fact s. See Ja req ui v. Cart er Mfg

. Co

., 17 3 F.3 d 10 7 6

, 10 83 (8 th

Ci r. 19 99 ) ("[ T] he di st ric t co ur t m us t cus to m iz e it s [Daub ert ] in qu iry to fit th e fact s

of each pa rti cu la r cas e."). W it h th is pr eced en t in m in d, we co ns id er Gig gy's

m et ho do lo gy.

As no te d, Gig gy in te rv ie wed Mr. Ru ss el l an d el im in at ed al te rn at iv e cau se s,
do cu m en te d th e sc en e, an d id en ti fie d a "s us pe ct area " by ex am in in g bu rn pa tt ern s on

th e st ud s in t h e p o r ti on of th e wall th at su rv iv ed th e fir e. He rev ie wed th e bu rn

pa tt ern s on th e ki tc he n ap pl ia nc es an d co nf irmed wit h Mr. Ru ss el l th e pl acement of

th e ap pl ia nc es in th e ki tc he n be fo re th e fir e. Bas ed on th e b u r n p a t t e rn s on th os e

ap pl ia nc es , th e ne ar-c om

pl et e de struc tio n of the refr ig erat or , it s po si ti on at th e bo tt om

of th e de br is

, an d th e m et al th ic kn es s va ria ti on at th e bo tt om pa rt of th e refr ig erat or

f r am e, Gig gy co nc lu de d th e fir e st art ed in th e refr ig erat or

. W e be li ev e Gig gy's

m et ho ds are su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to th e m et ho ds we f o u n d rel ia bl e in Sh uc k an d

Hick ers on

. Gig gy di d m or e th an si m pl y "eyebal l" th ree ki tc he n ap p l i an ces

. He

W hi rlp oo l at te m

pt s to di st in gu is h Hick ers on by arg u i n g e x p ert s fo r th e 2

p la in ti ff an d de fen da nt ag reed on th e area of or ig in in th at cas e. It fu r t h e r a r g u e s

un li ke Gig gy, th e pl ai nt iff 's ex pe rt in Hick ers on an al y zed bu rn an d sm ok e p a t te rn s
to de te rm in e th e fir e's pl ace o f or ig in . W e are no t p ers ua de d. The Hick ers on co ur t

m ad e no m en ti on of co ns en su s am on g th e ex pe rts as a si gn of rel ia bi li ty. In st ead

, it

ex am in ed th e act ua l m et ho ds us ed by th e ex pe rt, as we do he re. Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh
th e fir e in th e Ru ss el ls ' ho m e was a "t ot al bu rn ," th e reco rd sh ows Gig gy di d ex am in e bu rn pa tt ern s t o t he ex te nt po ss ib le

.

-1 0-ob se rv ed th e rel ev an t ev id en ce, ap p l i e d h is sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge , ex cl ud ed

a l t ern at iv e cau sa l th eo rie s, an d reac he d a co nc lu si on

. The se m et ho ds are m or e rig or ou s th an th e va gu e th eo riz in g a nd ip se di xi t lo gi c we h av e reject ed in th e pa st

. The an al y ti cal ga p be twee n th e ex is ti ng ev id en ce an d th e op in io n Gig gy of fere d is no t

so gre at as t o re qu ire ex cl us io n.

W hi rlp oo l's arg um en ts are be tt er ad dr es se d to th e jury reg ard in g th e weig ht to

be affo rd ed Gig gy's op in io n, rat he r th an to th e di st ric t co ur t on th e qu es ti o n of

ad m is si bi li ty. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s em ph as iz ed th e us ua l to ol s to ex po se fla ws in

ev id en ce rem ai n a va il ab le : "Vi go ro us cro ss -ex am in at io n, pr es en ta ti on of co nt rary

ev id en ce, an d care fu l in st ru ct io n on th e bu rd en of pr oo f are t h e tra di ti on al an d

ap pr op ria te m ean s of at ta ck in g sh ak y bu t ad m is si bl e ev id en ce." Daub ert , 50 9 U.S.

at 59 6; se e al so O l s o n v. Fo rd Mo to r Co

., 48 1 F.3 d 61 9, 62 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

W hi rlp oo l m ad e go od us e of th es e to ol s. The jury weig he d th e co nf li ct in g ev id en ce

an d cred it ed Gig gy's te st im on y , in sp it e of W hi rlp oo l's ch al le ng es

. W e fin d no erro r

in th is ex erci se of t h e a d ve rs ari al pr oc es s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n wh en it ad m it te d t he ch al le ng ed tes ti m on y

.

III

Mi ss ou ri la w, whi ch go ve rn s th is di ve rs it y -b as ed pr od uc ts li ab il it y act io n, se e

Pri tc he tt v. Co tt rel l, In c., 51 2 F.3 d 10 57

, 10 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), pe rm it s a jury to in fer

a pr od uc t de fect an d cau sa ti on ba se d on ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce un de r a re s ip sa
lo qu it ur -type the or y

. Aetn a Cas

. an d S ur . Co. v. Gen

. Elec

. Co

., 75 8 F.2d 31 9, 32 2
(8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (ci ti ng W il li am s v. Deere & Co

., 59 8 S.W .2d 60 9, 61 2 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 80 )). To pr ov e a pr od uc t de fect by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, a pl ai nt iff m us t of fer

ev id en ce t ha t:

(1 ) te nd s to el im in at e ot he r po ss ib le cau se s o f th e in jury or pr op ert y da m ag e, (2 ) d em on st rat es th at th e pr od uc t was in th e sa m e ba si c

-1 1-co nd it io n at th e ti m e of t h e o ccu rren ce as whe n it le ft th e ha nd s of th e

de fen d an ts

, an d (3 ) th e in jury or da m ag e is of a type th at no rm al ly

wou ld no t h av e o ccu rred in th e ab se nc e o f a d efec t i n t he pro du ct

.

Hick ers on , 47 0 F.3 d at 12 58 (ci ti ng Fai n v. GTE Sy lv an ia

, In c., 65 2 S.W .2d 16 3, 16 5
(Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 83 )). W hi rlp oo l co nt en ds th e in ab il it y of th e Ru ss el ls ' ex pe rts to

el im in at e po ss ib le al te rn at iv e cau se s of th e fir e pr ecl ud es th e Ru ss el ls fro m pr ov in g

th e fir st of th es e th ree e l e men t s

. Bec au se th e Ru ss el ls ' ex pe rts di d no t co ns id er or

co ul d n ot eli m in at e o th er el ect ric al ly-po wered de vi ces in si de th e Ru ss el ls ' ho m e as

cau se s of th e fir e, th e Ru ss el ls can no t sh ow th e ev id en ce te nd s to el im in at e po ss ib le

cau se s o th er t ha n t he refri ge rat or

.

W hi rlp oo l m ad e th is arg um en t in it s moti on fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at t e r o f l a w de

no v o

. Bat tl e v. Uni te d Parc el Serv ic e, In c., 43 8 F.3 d 85 6, 86 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w is ap pr op ria te if th ere is "n o le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ba si s" fo r

a reas on ab le jury to fin d fo r th e no n- m ov in g p a r t y

. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 50 (a)( 1)

. The

co ur t dr aws al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e no n- m ov in g pa rty whe n m ak in g

th is de te rm in at io n. W eb ne r v. Tit an Dis tri b., In c., 26 7 F.3 d 82 8, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ).

W he re co nf

li ct in g i nf eren ces m ay

be dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce, "i t is th e ro le of t he
jury, no t th e co ur t, to de te rm in e whi ch in fere nc e sh al l be dr awn ." Hun t v. Neb

. Pu b.

Po wer Dis t., 28 2 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 29 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). It is a " u n i v e r sa ll y ad op te d

st an da rd th at jud ge s m

us t be ex tre m el y gu ard ed in gr an ti ng jud gm en ts as a m at te r of

la w aft er a jury ve rd ic t." Ry th er v. KARE 11

, 10 8 F.3 d 83 2, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (en

ba nc ).

The el em en ts a pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e to in fer a pr od uc t de fect fro m
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce are in te nd ed to en su re th e ju r y's v e rd ic t is free fro m

sp e c u l at io n. The el em en ts "am ou nt to an as se ss m en t of th e st ren gt h of th e
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce," Hick ers on , 47 0 F.3 d at 12 59

, an d we ha ve en fo rced th es e

-1 2-li m it at io ns wher e th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce is no t str on g eno ug h to free th e jury's

ve rd ic t fr om

th e rea lm

of c on jectu re. See Ru m in er v . Gen. Mo to rs Co rp ., 4 83 F.3 d

56 1, 56 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce di d no t al lo w th e jury to

de te rm in e whe th er f

a il ur e of a car's se at be lt syste m was cau se d by pr od uc t de fect

,
p r o d uc t m is us e, or so m e ot he r co nd it io n ari si ng aft er th e ve hi cl e le ft t h e

m an uf act ur er's co nt ro l); Mar ti n v. E-Z Mar t Sto res , In c., 46 4 F.3d 82 7, 83 0- 31 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow t he jury to in fer a de fect in a
ci ga ret te li gh te r). At th e sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, we reco gn iz e "[a ]n in fere nc e ne ed no t

be ju s t i f i e d be y on d al l do ub t an d is no t pr ecl ud ed by a m ere po ss ib il it y th at th e

co nt rary m ay be tru e." Fai n, 65 2 S.W .2d at 16 5 (ci ti ng Sch eel e v. Am

. Bak eri es Co

., 42 7 S.W .2d 36 1, 36 5 (Mo

. 19 68 )). The qu es ti on , th en , is whe th er th e ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Ru ss el ls

, is st ro ng en ou gh to al lo w
th e jury to in fer, wit ho ut res or t to sp ecu la ti on , th at th e refr ig erat or co nt ai ne d a de fect

at th e ti m e it lef

t Whi rlp oo l's co nt ro l an d t ha t ca us ed th e fi re.

W e be li ev e it is

. The re f r i g e r a t o r was fo un d at th e bo tt om of th e de br is an d

was bu rn ed m or e si gn ifi can tl y th an an y ot he r ap pl ia nc e, su gg es ti ng it ex pe rie nc ed th e
ho tt e s t an d fas te st bu rn

. The si de of th e st ov e an d m ic ro wav e ad jacen t to th e

refr ig erat or was bu rn ed m or e su bs ta nt ia ll y th an th e ot he r si de of th os e a p p l i a nc es ,

su gg es ti ng th e fir e sp read to th os e ap pl ia nc es fro m th e refr ig erat or

. The m et al in th e

co m pr es so r be cam e ve ry th in

, a si gn of ex tre m e he at

. In fact

, th e he at was so ex tre m e

th at it bu rn ed co m

pl et el y th ro ug h th e st eel in th e co m pr es so r pa ne l, bu t di d no t bu rn

th ro ug h th e sa m e pa ne l ne arer to th e to p of th e refr ig erat or

. Giv en th e co m pr es so r's

lo cat io n in th e in te rio r of th e refr ig erat or , it wou ld ha ve be en pr ot ect ed fro m is ol at ed

he at ex po su re ha d th e fir e st art ed ou ts id e th e refr ig erat or

. The po wer w as of f in th e

co m pr es so r co m

pa rtment at th e ti m e of th e fir e, whi ch is co ns is te nt wit h an el ect ric al

m al fu nc ti on wit hi n th e co m pr es so r co m

pa rtment. The po wer to th e ot he r ap pl ia nc es , ho wev er, was on at th e ti m e of th e f i r e , s u g ge st in g th e fir e di d no t be gi n in th es e

ap pl ia nc es or th e br eak er pa ne l. Fi na ll y , th e Ru ss el ls he ard a st ran ge no is e em an at in g

fro m th e refr ig erat or in th e da y s be fo re th e fir e oc cu rred

. Alt ho ug h th is ev id en ce m ay

-1 3-no t co m

pe l th e jury to fin d fo r th e Ru ss el ls

, it is "s tro ng en ou gh to su pp or t reas on ab le

in fere nc es ne ces sa ry

to [th e Ru ss el ls '] cas e fre e fro m sp ecu la ti on ." Hick ers on , 47 0

F.3 d at 12 58

. Tha t is al l Mi ss ou ri la w req ui res

. To th e ex te nt W hi rlp oo l arg ue s th e

Ru ss el ls can no t el im in at e ot he r po ss ib le cau se s of th e fir e, we be li ev e it crea te d a fact

is su e th e jury res ol ve d at tri al

, rat he r th an an arg um en t th e Ru ss el ls can no t pr ov e an

es se nt ia l el em en t of th ei r cl ai m as a m at te r of Mi ss ou ri la w. Id

. at 12 60

. The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err whe n it de ni ed W hi rlp oo l's m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.

IV

Fi na ll y , W hi rlp oo l arg ue s Mar ti n vi ol at ed th e co ur t's in li m in e or de r

pr oh ib it in g ev id en ce of ot he r W hi r l p oo l refr ig erat or fir es whe n th e fo ll owi ng

ex ch an ge oc cu rred :

Q. W ha t's th e si gn ifi can ce to y ou , i f an y th in g, th at t h e po wer is of f to th e co m pr es so r whe n th e fir e ge ts th ere bu t it's on whe n th e fir e ge ts to th e ran ge ? W ha t's th at tel l you?
A. It te ll s m e th at th e fir e or ig in at es wit hi n th e co m pr es so r co m

pa rtment

an d pr og res se s ou twar d fro m th at lo cat io n. And ob vi ou sl y it 's no t a bi g

se cret he re. The th eo ry is in th e pa st th ere ha ve be en pr ob le m s wit h th e rel ay co nt act or s.

J.A. 5 90 . Accor di ng to W hi rlp oo l, thi s com m en t pri m ed th e jury to t hi nk ab ou t t he

co m pr es so r as th e cau se o f t h e f i r e , a di sp ut ed is su e in th e cas e. Thu s, W hi rlp oo l

arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t's fai lu re to gr an t a m is tri al fo ll owi ng Mar ti n' s rem ark

co ns ti tu te s p reju di ci al erro r.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on no t to gr an t a m is tri al fo r a bu se of

di sc ret io n. Pu ll m an v. Lan d O'Lake s, In c., 26 2 F. 3 d 7 5 9

, 76 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). "In

or de r fo r a v io la ti on of a n o rd er g ran ti ng an in li m in e m ot io n t o se rv e as a b as is for

a ne w tri al

, th e or de r m

us t be sp eci fic in it s pr oh ib it io n an d th e vi o l a t i o n mu s t be

-1 4-cl ear." Id

. A pa rty is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al on ly whe re th e vi ol at io n was pr ejud ic ia l.

Id

. An erro r is pr ejud ic ia l if it "in al l pr ob ab il it y pr od uc ed so m e effe ct on th e jury's

ve rd ic t an d i s h arm fu l t o t he su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he pa rty ass ig ni ng it ." Id

.

Any v io la ti on of th e c ou rt' s in li m in e or de r was ne it he r cl ear no r pr ejud ic ia l.

Fi rs t, Mar ti n's st at em en t is va gu e

. M a r t in di d no t ex pr es sl y m en ti on ot he r fir es

. Mo reo ve r, aft er W hi rlp oo l ob jecte d an d th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e jury, Mar ti n
cl ari fie d hi s co m

m en t ad dr es se d ci rcu m st an ces fro m th is cas e th at su pp or te d hi s

th eo ry

. The di st ric t cou rt fou nd th is ex pl an at io n sat is fact or y

. The refo re, it was no t

al to ge th er cl ear Mar ti n was refe rri ng to ot he r in ci de nt s. Seco nd

, th e co m m en t di d no t

ap pe ar to be in te n t i on al

, an d th ere were no fu rth er refe ren ces to ot he r si m il ar

in ci de nt s du rin g th e tri al

. See id

. at 75 2- 53 (co nc lu di ng ap pe ll an t was no t pr ejud ic ed
by a si ng le

, un in te nt io na l rem ark ). Thi rd

, aft er co ns ul ti ng wit h th e pa rti es an d us in g

th e ex act la ng ua ge W hi rlp oo l su gg es te d, th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n:

Lad ie s an d ge nt le m en , th e ob jecti on to th e la st st at em en t was su st ai ne d by m e, an d I'm in st ru ct in g y ou th at y ou 're to di sr eg ard Mr. Mar ti n's la st

st at em en t ju st be fo re we t oo k t he bre ak in th is cas e.

J.A. 59 7. W e ha ve pr ev i o u s l y h e l d a di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by

refu si ng to de ny a m is tri al fo r vi ol at io n of an in li m in e o r d e r whe n, am on g ot he r

th in gs , th e co ur t gi ve s a pr om pt an d cl ear cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n. Bl ack v. Sh ul tz

, 53 0

F.3 d 70 2, 70 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); Harri so n v. Pu rd y Bro s. Truc ki ng Co

., 31 2 F.3 d 34 6,

35 3 (8t h Cir. 20 02 ). Fin al ly, W hi rlp oo l o ffer s n o c om pe ll in g e xp la na ti on of ho w it

w a s pr ejud ic ed or de ni ed a fai r tri al by Mar ti n's co m m en t, an d ou r rev ie w of t h e

reco rd rev eal s no un fai rn es s. The refo re, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e

it s d is cret io n wh en it de ni ed W hi rlp oo l's m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

.

-1 5-V

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-