$________ - PRODUCTS LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE AND/OR DANGEROUS DESIGN - DEFECTIVE WIRING HARNESS IN CLOTHES DRYER MANUFACTURED BY DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO CAUSE HOUSE FIRE THAT RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE HOME.

York County, Maine

This was a products liability matter in which the plaintiff alleged that the clothes dryer manufactured by the defendant was defective and/or dangerous in design. The plaintiff alleged that the defective wiring harness caused a fire that substantially damaged the plaintiff’s home. The defendant denied the allegations of defect.

The plaintiff, a 24-year licensed builder and wiring inspector, testified that he installed a dryer manufactured by the defendant’s subsidiary Frigidaire in his home. He installed the dryer without consulting any installation manual. The dryer was properly maintained and functioned properly up to the time of the fire. On July 22, ________, the plaintiff left the house with the dryer running. The plaintiff returned to find that his home had substantially been destroyed by a fire that was determined to have ignited as a result of a faulty wiring harness in the subject dryer.

The plaintiff gave prompt notice to the defendant regarding the alleged defect in the wiring harness. The defendant did not send an expert to inspect the dryer for well over three years from the date of the fire. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleging that the wiring harness was defectively designed and that it was the sole cause of the plaintiff’s loss.

The plaintiff alleged $________ in damages as a result of the dryer defect.

The defendant contended that it was not liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The defendant’s expert opined that the dryer was not, in fact, the ignition point of the fire. However, the defendant failed to offer a possible alternative source of the ignition.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and awarded the plaintiff the requested damages of $________.