Dunn v. Nexgrill Industries, Inc., 636 F.3d 1049

Dunns sued Nexgrill for a design defect in the grill cabinet allegedly causing a fire; they sought to prove defect via Bicknese expert testing, which the district court excluded, leading to summary judgment for Nexgrill.
Fire occurred Aug. 24, 2006; grill with propane tank in the bottom cabinet; investigators concluded the fire originated inside the lower cabinet and Propane pressure-relief valve may have contributed.
Bicknese conducted tests with a test grill, showing the hose could contact the grease tray and melt, leading to ignition; his setup included tying the hose in an unusual position to simulate contact with the tray; the district court viewed this as recreating the fire, not testing scientific principles and excluded the evidence.
Second round of testing extended the burn to about 50+ minutes, allegedly supporting the theory that hose deterioration caused the fire; despite motions, the district court excluded the evidence and granted summary judgment.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under Rule 702 for abuse of discretion and reviewed the summary judgment de novo under Missouri strict liability standard; the court affirmed the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding Bicknese’s testimony	Dunns argue tests demonstrated scientific principles, not recreation of the fire	Nexgrill contends tests were not substantially similar and were an attempt to recreate the fire	No clear abuse of discretion
Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion of Bicknese	Dunns could rely on circumstantial evidence of defect	Without admissible defect testimony, no genuine defect issue	Proper; no genuine issue of material fact without defect testimony
Whether circumstantial evidence can establish a product defect without res ipsa pleadings	Circumstantial evidence could prove defect despite no res ipsa plea	Circumstantial proof requires specific defects or appropriate theory	Not proven; Dunns failed to show evidence of a defect causal link

McKnight v. Johnson Controls, 36 F.3d 1396 (8th Cir. 1994) (admissibility of experimental tests and reconstruction considerations)
Champeau v. Fruehauf Corp., 814 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1987) (tests must be substantially similar when reconstructing an accident)
Fusco v. Gen. Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 1993) (distinguishes between recreations and abstract principles in admissibility of tests)
Hickerson v. Pride Mobility Prods. Corp., 470 F.3d 1252 (8th Cir. 2006) (circumstantial evidence in product-fire cases; common experience)
Willard v. Bic Corp., 788 F. Supp. 1059 (W.D. Mo. 1991) (comparison of cigarette lighter to fires; product naturally ignites with defect considerations)
Winters v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 554 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977) (circumstantial proof in product-fire cases; absence of defect risk considerations)
England v. Downey, 589 F.2d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (res ipsa and specific acts pleading framework)
Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 239 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. App. 2007) (requirements for proving a products-liability claim by circumstantial evidence)