Russell, et al v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 12-1451 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against Whirlpool after a fire destroyed their home, alleging that the fire was caused by a defective refrigerator Whirlpool designed, manufactured, and sold. Whirlpool appealed the jury's finding in favor of plaintiffs. The court concluded that the fire investigator did not employ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921 in his investigation and therefore, his testimony could not be excluded for failure to reliably apply its contents; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the challenged testimony of the investigator where the jury weighed the conflicting evidence and credited the investigator's testimony in spite of Whirlpool's challenges; the district court did not err when it denied Whirlpool's motion for judgment as a matter of law where the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to allow the jury to infer that the refrigerator contained a defect at the time it left Whirlpool's control and that caused the fire; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Whirlpool's motion for a mistrial for violation of an in limine order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - products liability. In suit involving claims that a fire at plaintiffs' home was caused by defendant's defective refrigerator, the district court did not err in permitting plaintiff's expert to testify even though he had not followed NFPA 921 as the fire investigation standard is not the only reliable way to investigate a fire; our cases do hold that an expert who purports to follow NFPA 921 must follow its contents reliably if his testimony is to be admitted, but here the expert did not purport to apply NFPA 921 and his testimony could not be excluded for failure to reliably follow the contents of the standard; district court did not err in determining the expert followed a reliable methodology in his investigation; Missouri law permits a jury to infer a product defect and causation based on circumstantial evidence under a res-ipsa loquitur theory; where the court gave a prompt and clear curative instruction, it did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial where plaintiffs' counsel violated an in limine order in closing argument.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.