A “Toolbox” for Forensic Engineers

198 Forensic Materials Engineering: Case Studies
The accident was unusual in that the fire had occurred in the interior of
the car rather than the engine compartment (where the original problem had
been discovered). So what was the likely cause? Unfortunately, most of the
evidence had been lost in the fire, because the car was nothing more than a
burnt-out shell when it was examined later. There were two possible causes: a
faulty heater near the dashboard, and the plastic return pipe to the gasoline
tank at the rear of the vehicle. The seats were filled with highly inflammable
polymer foam, but the rapidity of the fire suggested a gasoline leak and ignition
from a spark. Ignition could have been from the faulty heater although it is
well known that static sparks can easily ignite gas or fumes. The fuel return
pipe passed through the interior of the car, and could have leaked gasoline just
before the fire. It then only needed a small spark, perhaps when the woman
left the car or closed the door, to ignite the fumes. A small fire became an
inferno as the liquid gasoline caught fire, and the fire grew into the seats. Such
a scenario seemed feasible, but lacked corroboration in detail.
6.5.3 Murphy Infants v. Fiat Spa
By the time the investigator’s original report was requested, the case had
reached an impasse. In personal injury actions, the plaintiff often faces the
problem of discovering details of manufacturing processes, QC procedures
and previous incidents, from the defendant companies. The problem of
“discovery” from Fiat Spa in Ireland had led to a “striking-out” claim against
the company, because Fiat either could not or would not release the required
information to the claimants’ solicitors. The latter thus pursued the information
independently, and came across the public information of the recall
in the early 1980s. The trail led to the insurance company, which had unfortunately
deleted the original independent report on which the recall was
based. However, the insurance company did have a record that the report
had been commissioned, so it was able to make contact with the original
investigator. Fortunately, the investigator had retained all samples and reports
from the first accidents, and was able to supply them directly to the legal
team in Ireland. The report was supplied as an affidavit to the Court, and
the defendant witnesses (heads of litigation and engineering from Italy) were
cross examined on the evidence of the fuel line problem.
Their answers were rather evasive and lacked credibility this was somewhat
surprising because they had some time to consider the questions in
court, since they were provided with a translator. On the flight from London
the previous day, the investigator heard them speaking fluent English with
their attorney! The claimants succeeded in their action, but the case went to
appeal on the legal principle of striking out the defense. It effectively meant
that Fiat could not succeed when and if the main claims went to full trial.
Although Fiat won the appeal, the claim was settled before trial with a
substantial award to the injured children.