On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff ignited a brand new Bath & Body Works 3-wick candle and left it burning on her kitchen counter while she put her son to bed. Within 30 minutes, she asserted that the entire liquid wax pool inside the candle jar caught fire, resulting in a phenomenon known as a “flashover.” While attempting to extinguish the candle, she sustained burns from hot wax. She testified that less than 30 minutes elapsed from the moment she lit the candle until it was extinguished.
The product in question, a 3-wick scented candle titled “Eucalyptus Spearmint Stress Relief,” consists of approximately 90% soy wax and 10% fragrance oil. Alene Candles produced this specific candle for BBW in January 2015 at Alene’s Ohio factory, which opened in 2012. The incident candle belonged to a batch of around 5,000 candles mixed and manufactured at the same time.
The central dispute in this case revolved around whether the Plaintiff’s own misuse (leaving the candle burning unattended for nearly 12 hours) or some sort of manufacturing defect involving how the candle wax and oil were mixed caused the incident. Plaintiff’s expert John J. Golder expressed the opinion that the candle was insufficiently mixed at Alene’s Ohio facility, resulting in “hot pockets” of unmixed fragrance oil, i.e., excess oil in certain locations of the candle, which then enabled the candle to suddenly flashover within just 30 minutes of use.
The Plaintiff also hired David Xu to varnish her “hot pocket” theory with a scientifically sounding explanation. The Defendant, Bath & Body Works, LLC filed motions to exclude the reports and testimonies of Golder and Xu for not meeting the Rule 702 and Daubert standards.
Fire Investigation Expert Witness
John J. Golder is a former law enforcement officer of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”). Golder is a well-regarded expert concerning fire investigations and forensics, with over 30 years of experience in the field and a master’s degree in forensic science from the University of New Haven.
Back in 1991, he taught an undergraduate course in Fire Science Chemistry at the University of New Haven. The course included an examination of the chemical requirements for combustion, the chemistry of fuels and explosive mixtures, the various methods of stopping combustion and an analysis of the properties affecting fire behavior.
Material Science Expert Witness
David Xu has served as the principal engineer in Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc. He used to specialize in chemical, materials and mechanical engineering.
Xu received his bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees at UC Berkeley.
Discussion by the Court
Qualifications
Golder intended to testify that the “evidence showed the flashovers were caused by the failure to obtain a proper homogenous mix of wax and fragrant oil” and “it was especially dangerous to have a non-homogenous mix of base wax and fragrant oil because 3-wick candles had a greater Heat Release Rate.” The Court found both opinions were within Golder’s realm of expertise and supported by sufficient data as required by Rule 702.
It found Golder was qualified to opine on the cause of the flashover in this matter, including that a non-homogenous mix of fragrant oil and wax in a candle could lead to flashovers such as the one experienced by Plaintiff.
It also found that Golder’s opinions were based on (1) his extensive experience investigating fires, (2) his own testing of three Bath & Body Works (“BBW”) candles, and (3) deposition testimony and other experts’ scientific tests in the case, which he was permitted to rely on under Rule 703. The Court held that Golder’s opinions met the reliability test set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert.
Golder demonstrated a reasonably sound basis for forming his opinions and any significant questions concerning the correctness of Golder’s opinions were the province of the jury.
When Golder testified that BBW only performed subjective visual inspection to confirm that there was a homogenous mix throughout the candle, the Court held that Golder lacked the necessary qualifications to opine on candle manufacturing and design. As Golder insisted on a constant percentage of fragrance oil mixed homogenously throughout, the Court excluded his testimony regarding the the proper procedure for mixing candles, or about the improperly mixed candle at issue.
Reliance on Deposition Testimony
The Court allowed Golder to rely on the depositions of Thomas Donnelly, Stephen Smith, John English, and Andy Fernandez, but did not permit him to simply parrot their testimony on the stand as the jury was capable of reviewing and weighing that testimony themselves. For example, Golder highlighted Stephen Smith’s testimony comparing the candle mixture to a cake batter in which you could get spots of flour and sugar, if you do not mix everything correctly. The Court held that not only did it summarize testimony the jury could hear and consider themselves, but it also fell outside the scope of Golder’s expertise while discussing proper candle manufacturing and design.
To sum it up, the Court allowed Golder to testify that the failure to obtain a proper homogenous mix of wax and fragrant oil caused the flashovers and a non-homogenous mix of base wax and fragrant oil was especially dangerous. Golder could rely on the testing of David Xu as long he offered opinions only within the scope of his expertise and avoided parroting the testimony of other witnesses.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the expert opinions of John Golder and David Xu.
Key Takeaways:
- Qualification: The Court observed that Golder was qualified to opine on the cause of the flashover in this matter considering his extensive experience investigating fires. However, Golder lacked the qualifications to opine on candle manufacturing and design. The Court rejected Golder’s insistence on a homogenous mix throughout the candle.
- Reliability: Golder demonstrated a reasonably sound basis for forming his opinions considering his extensive experience investigating fires, his own testing of three Bath & Body Works (“BBW”) candles, and reliance on deposition testimony and other experts’ scientific tests in the case.
- Parroting Deposition Testimony: The Court did not permit Golder to simply parrot deposition testimony on the stand as the jury was capable of reviewing and weighing that testimony themselves.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Lakes V. Bath & Body Works, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 2:16cv2989 |
| Court: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 26, 2024 |
Leave a Reply