HDBDK ‘s Technical Expertise Results in Surprise Dismissal for Retailer

DALLAS, Oct. 25, 2007 - HDBDK partners Jeffrey Cox and John Dacus were recently retained by one of the world’s largest retailers to take over a three-year-old wrongful death case. As it turns out, the retailer, a new client for the firm, had fired the last two law firms on the case because they did not have expertise in electrical fires and fire cause and origin. Cox and Dacus were hired because they both regularly handle fire cases and because Dacus is an electrical engineer.

The case involved the deaths of a young couple who had died in a house fire believed to have been caused by a halogen floor lamp purchased at one of the retailer’s stores in East Texas. The retailer was the sole defendant because the lamp allegedly recovered from the house had been burned in the fire to the point that no expert could identify the manufacturer. In addition, the plaintiff’s had no receipt of the purchase and claimed to have paid cash, so no cancelled check or credit card receipt existed either. Nevertheless, the plaintiff and father of one of the decedents testified he bought the lamp for his son as a floor sample. He also positively identified the burned lamp as the one he bought from the retailer months before the incident.

When HDBDK received the case it was believed to be ready for trial. The potential damages were estimated to be in the millions. When Cox and Dacus reviewed the file, however, they determined that key evidence and testimony relating to the cause and origin of the fire was missing. In addition, both were confident, based on their knowledge of fires, fire patterns and heat transfer, that the burned lamp shown in the many photos taken by the so-called experts did not look like it had been in a house fire. In fact, the lamp looked more like it had been held over a campfire and intentionally burned. After convincing the judge to move the trial date, Cox and Dacus inspected the home and the lamp. After the inspections, both were certain the lamp was a fraud. The question was how to prove it.

Cox and Dacus convinced the client to hire a forensic chemist to test the lamp for any residue of accelerants. The tests proved the lamp had a residue of gasoline. Armed with this information, Cox then demanded the deposition of the man who allegedly found the lamp. The house, being a rental, had been cleaned out with all the burned remnants thrown in a nearby dumpster. Initially, this witness claimed he found the lamp in the dumpster and claimed it matched the lamp he had previously seen in room where the fire started. Cox then confronted him with questions of how gasoline got on the lamp and ultimately the witness admitted it was a fraud. He testified he was offered a $500 reward by the plaintiff - the father who claimed he bought the lamp - to find a black halogen lamp in the dumpster. When no lamp was found in the dumpster, the witness said he borrowed one, poured gas on it, intentionally burned it and then gave it to the plaintiff for the reward money.

As a result of this confession, the Judge, in a heavily pro-plaintiff jurisdiction, determined that he had no option but to grant a motion for summary judgment and dismiss all claims with prejudice.