Agnes v. Whirlpool Corp., BACV200600295
| Decision Date | 11 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | BACV200600295 |
| Citation | 08 MBAR 331 |
| Parties | Peter Agnes et al.[1] v. Whirlpool Corporation |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Rufo, Robert C., J.
Peter and Rita Agnes (together "Agnes") suffered significant fire damage to their home shortly after Peter Agnes plugged a new dehumidifier into a nearby receptacle underneath their basement stairs. The defendant, Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool"), manufactured the dehumidifier that allegedly caused the fire. Agnes brought this products liability action against Whirlpool and now that the parties have conducted approximately fifteen months of discovery, Whirlpool has filed a motion for summary judgment. After conducting a hearing and carefully reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court will ALLOW Whirlpool's motion.
Peter Agnes purchased a Whirlpool dehumidifier sometime during 2003. He unpacked the dehumidifier on June 7, 2004 and he plugged it into a receptacle (outlet) located beneath his basement stairs. Approximately three hours later, he could smell smoke and he found the fire emerging from underneath the basement stairs. Rita Agnes called the Yarmouth Fire Department, who extinguished the fire, but not before the house suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars damage.
Captain Michael L. Caruso ("Caruso") of the Yarmouth Fire Department investigated the cause of the fire. He determined that the fire started beneath the basement stairs and that it was "electrical in nature."[2] Caruso called Kent Elliott ("Elliott"), a wiring inspector for the Town of Yarmouth, to assist with the investigation. Elliott inspected the receptacle that Agnes used to power the dehumidifier and identified a number of code violations. Although Caruso issued a report indicating that the fire was caused by electrical arcing in the receptacle, Elliott later acknowledged that he was unable to determine whether the receptacle or the dehumidifier caused the fire.[3] " Elliott Dep. 24:10-23. During the same deposition, Elliott acknowledged that he did not observe arcing in the receptacle because "[i]t would be hard to make any determination" due to the burning. Id. at 23:10-22. Caruso and Elliott were able to point to the receptacle and the dehumidifier as the likely origin of the fire, but neither was able to determine which one actually caused the fire.
Agnes called their own expert cause and origin investigator Vincent Calenda ("Calenda") to investigate. Calenda conducted his investigation nine days after the fire, at which time he collected the remnants of the dehumidifier, the carpet underneath the dehumidifier, and a receptacle. At that time, Calenda could not determine whether the dehumidifier or the receptacle caused the fire. Agnes retained Michael Rains ("Rains"), an electrical engineer, to conduct a thorough investigation of the dehumidifier and the receptacle recovered by Calenda. Rains inspected the dehumidifier on two occasions and the receptacle. Rains could not identify any physical, manufacturing, or design defect with the dehumidifier or the receptacle, but when asked which of the two more probably than not caused the fire, Rains chose the dehumidifier. Whirlpool's expert engineers could not identify any defects within the dehumidifier.
Whirlpool contends that Calenda collected the wrong electrical receptacle box from the scene of the fire.[4] Agnes either agrees with Whirlpool or it has failed to show sufficient facts to controvert Whirlpool's assertion. Whirlpool has shown by comparing the deposition testimony of Peter Agnes Elliott, and Calenda, that the receptacle Calenda collected was in a different location than the receptacle Agnes used to energize the dehumidifier. Whirlpool buttressed its contention that the wrong receptacle was recovered by citing the deposition testimony of Agnes, Elliott, and Rains and the affidavits of Whirlpool's own experts, Stephen G. Boughton and W. Ronald Kilgore, to show that the recovered receptacle could not have received the three-prong plug attached to the dehumidifier. The actual receptacle has not been nor will it ever be recovered.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted where it appears from the pleadings and evidentiary materials offered that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Cassesso v. Comm'r of Corr., 390 Mass. 419, 422 (1983). The moving party bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the absence of a triable issue, and that the summary judgment record entitles it to judgment as a matter of law. Pederson v. Time Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 16-17 (1989). "If the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts which would establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 17. All permissible inferences shall be made in favor of the non-moving party on a motion for summary judgment. Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 273 (2006).
Here Agnes must show that some defect in the dehumidifier caused the fire. See Enrich v. Windmere Corp., 416 Mass. 83, 88-89 (1993). The plaintiff need not show the exact cause of the fire and it need not exclude all other possible causes, but it must show by a "greater probability" that the fire resulted from the defendant's negligence. McCabe v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 314 Mass. 493, 496 (1943). Juries may not decide cases based upon mere ...
To continue reading
Request your trial