Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Material Science Expert Witness

  • Materials Science Expert’s Testimony on Fire Causation Excluded

    Materials Science Expert’s Testimony on Fire Causation Excluded

    Ibrahim Qasim bought a sixty-four ounce container of EcoLogic Bed Bug Killer 2 (“Product”) from Home Depot on August 26, 2019. On September 2, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., Ibrahim sprayed all sixty-four ounces of the product into the living room of the apartment he and Nouh Qasim shared. At 5:00 p.m., as Nouh turned on the gas stove in the kitchen to make coffee, a fireball erupted, severely burning both Plaintiffs. The Newark Fire Department found sodium azide in the bathtub drain, a highly toxic chemical compound “used to make explosives and methamphetamine.” First responders also found a gasoline can in the apartment.

    Plaintiffs sued Defendants Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. (“Spectrum”), United Industries Corporation (“United”) and Liquid Fence Company for strict products liability and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.

    Plaintiffs retained Dr. James W. Pugh, Ph.D. as an expert, who summarized his analysis in a two-page report (“Pugh Report”). Pugh concluded, to a reasonable degree of scientific, engineering, ergonomic, and human factors certainty, that the defective labeling of the product was the proximate cause of the accident.

    Defendants argued that Pugh’s expert report should be excluded because it concluded the warning label on the product caused the fire without “any mention of scientific methodologies, mathematical calculations, or independent testing and analysis.”

    Materials Science Expert Witness

    Dr. James Whitworth Pugh, Ph.D. earned an undergraduate degree in metallurgy and materials science and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”).

    While a graduate student at MIT, Pugh worked at the U.S. Army Materials and Mechanics Research Lab. After graduating, Pugh taught biomechanics, engineering, and materials sciences at several institutions, including New York University.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding James Pugh’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Qualification

    Pugh opined about the Product’s warning label and the cause of the fire. Pugh has extensive experience analyzing “products, warnings, and instructions.” So, he has more knowledge than the average layperson about the adequacy of warnings. Pugh, therefore, is qualified to opine about the Product’s warning label.

    Pugh, however, is not qualified to testify about the cause of the fire. To be sure, Pugh testified he had “done a lot of thermal injuries analysis” and was “exposed to a large amount of fire and thermal events” in his work at MIT. But analyzing burns on the human body or seeing fires in a ballistics laboratory are fundamentally different than investigating the origin of a fire.

    Pugh has never been a fire investigator, been a member of a professional fire investigation organization, or published an article on the causes of fires. Pugh has no training in recognizing burn patterns. And the record did not reflect that he has any practical experience investigating the origin of a fire. Instead, Pugh’s sole experience with fire causation comes from owning a sailboat with an isopropyl alcohol stove, and taking courses at MIT covering isopropyl alcohol fires. But the fact that Pugh knows what an alcohol fire looks like in a stove on a boat does not qualify him to give an expert opinion that this fire was an alcohol fire, or the Product caused it.

    While Pugh is qualified to testify about warning labels, the Court held that he is not qualified to testify about the cause of the fire.

    B. Reliability

    i. Fire Causation

    Pugh’s opinion about the cause of the fire lacked good grounds because it is based entirely on comparing pictures of the apartment to his experience using an alcohol stove on a boat.

    Pugh did not test the Product or account for the distance between where Ibrahim sprayed the Product and the site of the fire, the time between when Ibrahim sprayed the Product and the fire, or the presence of other flammable substances in the apartment. He “used little, if any, methodology beyond his own intuition.”

    The Court concluded that Pugh had no reliable basis to conclude the Product’s isopropyl alcohol content caused the fire.

    ii. Failure to Warn

    Pugh’s conclusions about the product’s warning label lacked signs of reliability. Here, the product had a flammability warning. Examining a fourteen-ounce spray can of the product, Pugh concluded the text was too small. However, it did not appear that he examined the warning on the much larger sixty-four-ounce container of the product Ibrahim used on the day of the accident.

    Pugh did not consider federal pesticide labeling standards, industry practice, the Product’s accident history, scientific testing, whether his proposed open flame pictogram was feasible, or whether it would have prevented the accident. Nor did he provide any visual aids to explain his conclusion that the Product had an inadequate warning and that his proposed warning was adequate. At most, Pugh asserted that the product’s warning did not comply with two standards from the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and a warning handbook from 2006.

    According to the Court, neither Pugh’s opinion that the product caused the fire, nor his opinion that the flammability warning on the product was inadequate, are reliable.

    C. Fit

    At the Daubert hearing, Pugh testified that it was “unlikely” the Product caused the fire if Ibrahim’s timeline were true. Pugh added he “disagreed with the characterization of the time that Ibrahim applied it in view of what [Nouh] said.” But Pugh did not explain why he disagreed with Ibrahim’s account and believed Nouh’s. Nor did he address the issue in his report. Instead, he simply concluded the fire started when Nouh said it did. That is of no assistance to the factfinder.

    Likewise, although Ibrahim testified “he never read the warnings or instructions on the product” before using it, Pugh concluded that an open flame pictogram would have prevented the fire. Pugh entirely failed to explain why a Plaintiff who did not read any of the warnings on the product would nonetheless read a different warning on the product. Here, too, the lack of a why or wherefore did not assist the factfinder. The Court held that Pugh’s opinions, accordingly, did not fit the proceedings.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. James Pugh.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert’s testimony ‘fits’ the proceedings, if it will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Pugh’s analysis is bereft of a why or wherefore.

    Because Pugh is not qualified to render expert opinions on fire causation, his conclusions on fire causation and adequate warnings are unreliable, and his analysis does not fit the proceedings, the Court excluded his testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Qasim Et Al V. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:21cv18744
    Court Name: United States District Court, New Jersey
    Order Date: January 12, 2026
  • Fire Investigation Expert Witness Deemed Unqualified to Opine on Candle Design

    Fire Investigation Expert Witness Deemed Unqualified to Opine on Candle Design

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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