Court Opinion

ID: 9411806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 22:01:07.952418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.891860
License: Public Domain

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

          United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 21-1394

    LUIS MOLINARY-FERNÁNDEZ; AILEEN CABRERA-VINOLO; CONJUGAL

                  PARTNERSHIP MOLINARY-CABRERA,

                      Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                    v.

                    BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

                        Defendant, Appellee.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

       [Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory, U.S. District Judge]

                                 Before

                     Barron, Chief Judge,
              Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

     Rubén T. Nigaglioni, with whom Nigaglioni Law Offices P.S.C.
was on brief, for appellants.
     Antonio Gnocchi Franco, with whom Gnocchi-Franco Law Office
was on brief, for appellees.

                             July 27, 2023
           Per Curiam.     We have carefully reviewed the parties'

briefs and the record on appeal and conclude that the district

court's judgment should be affirmed on the ground stated in its

well-reasoned Opinion and Order of March 31, 2021.             Molinary-

Fernández v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, Civ. No. 18-1538, 2021 WL 5263638

(D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2021).

           In brief, appellants owned a 2016 BMW X5 hybrid vehicle.

The "vehicle's owner manual cautions users not to 'extend the

supplied   charging      cable   with    external   cables'"    because

"'[i]mproper use of the charging cable can [] lead to damage, for

example cable fire.   There is a risk of fire.'"    Id. at *2 (quoting

Docket No. 31-3 at 15).     On September 11, 2017, appellants parked

the vehicle in their garage and charged it using an extension cord.

A fire then occurred in appellants' garage.         Appellants contend

that the fire was the result of a manufacturing or design defect

in their hybrid BMW, which caused the car to catch fire when it

was charging.

           In evaluating appellants' claims, the district court

noted that "given the complex nature of the product in this case

. . . [p]laintiffs are incorrect in arguing 'it can be inferred by

the nature of the incident that the damage occurred because of the

defect in the product, although no proof is produced of the

particular or specific causes of the injurious event.'"        Id. at *3

(quoting Docket No. 27 at 10).           To the contrary, the court

                                 - 2 -
observed, plaintiffs had "to present expert or direct evidence

regarding any manufacturing or design defect." Id. at *4. Indeed,

"[a]ccording to the fire marshal who investigated the incident,

determining the cause of the fire should be up to a 'certified

electrical mechanic and expert in hybrid vehicles.'"               Id. at *2

(quoting Docket Nos. 24-2 at 1; 28 at 1-2).

           Appellants, however, failed to present an expert to

support their theory that the fire was caused by a defect in the

vehicle.   On the other hand, BMW's expert -- a licensed mechanical

engineer -- concluded both that the fire did not originate in the

vehicle and that the extension cord, which "had a tightened zip

tie around it" and was "found [after the fire] coiled, amongst

melted   plastic   bins   and    other    debris    found   in   the   garage,

. . . [could not] be ruled out as the cause of this fire."              Docket

No. 31-3 at 12-13, 17-18.

           On   this   record,    the    district   court   concluded    that

appellants could not satisfy their burden of proof at trial.               See

Molinary-Fernández, 2021 WL 5263638 at *6.              We agree because,

absent any expert support for the theory the appellants pressed

below, we see no basis for inferring that the accident was caused

by a defective product.         See Santos-Rodriguez v. Seastar Sols.,

858 F.3d 695, 699 (1st Cir. 2017).

           Affirmed.

                                   - 3 -