DEBBIE ANN CASH v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
342 Ga. App. 735
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Fire on July 6, 2011 destroyed the entertainment center in Debbie Cash’s home; her husband and son died. Fire investigators located the origin in the entertainment center but could not identify the precise source.
- Cash sued LG (and other defendants, most later dismissed), alleging strict liability, negligence, and warranty claims, arguing an LG television caused the fire.
- Cash offered an engineering expert who hypothesized an internal capacitor (C612) on the TV’s power supply board vented, contacted a heat sink, caused an electrical arc, ignited vapors/plastic, and propagated fire out of the TV.
- The trial court excluded the expert under OCGA § 24-7-702/Daubert principles, finding his methods unreliable because he repeatedly manipulated tests (removed a fuse, used a different capacitor, simulated component contact, used a lighter to ignite vapors, forced plastic to drip, etc.).
- After excluding the expert, the trial court granted summary judgment for LG for lack of admissible evidence of causation; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the expert’s methodology created an analytical gap from data to opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony under OCGA § 24-7-702/Daubert | Cash: Expert used reliable methods and sufficient data to conclude the TV caused the fire | LG: Expert’s testing was unreliable, required repeated manipulation, and was not generally accepted or validated | Court affirmed exclusion: methodology unreliable; analytical gap between data and opinion |
| Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to show TV caused fire | Cash: Investigators placed origin in entertainment center; expert’s process of elimination supports TV as source | LG: Without reliable expert causation opinion, plaintiff lacks admissible proof linking TV to fire | Court: Exclusion of expert left no admissible causation evidence; claims fail |
| Whether trial court conflated admissibility with weight/credibility | Cash: Questions about testing go to weight, not admissibility | LG: Reliability goes to admissibility under Daubert/OCGA § 24-7-702 | Court: Reliability is a gatekeeping admissibility issue; exclusion was appropriate |
| Equitable claims (unjust enrichment, restitution) | Cash: Seeks equitable relief alongside tort/warranty claims | LG: Plaintiff has adequate legal remedies; unjust enrichment not pled as alternate contract theory | Court: Equitable claims fail because adequate legal remedy existed and pleading was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper must ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (courts may exclude expert opinions with an analytical gap between data and conclusion)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not only scientific)
- Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286 (Ga. 2016) (OCGA § 24-7-702 requires court gatekeeping on expert admissibility)
- Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (Ga. 2008) (appellate review of admissibility is for abuse of discretion)