DEFENSE TACTICS - PRIMARILY DISHONESTY AND EVASIVENESS
Dr. Eager's declaration is disturbing because it
indicates he and the manufacturer know of the defects, and even this many years after the first injury lawsuit was filed, they continue
to take no action to prevent these horrible severe burn injuries. Note that Dr. Eager does not dispute any of Dr. Anderson's
findings. Instead, he makes assertions that are contradicted simply by looking at the photographs posted under "defect."
Here are some specifics:
1. Dr. Eager says, “5. I did not conclude the accident cylinder could not have been kicked
into the fire”
However, in that particular case the allegation was that the cylinder was kicked into a fire, where it sat for
a while until it exploded. At
his deposition he said:
"152:9 - A: You wouldn't get this type of crack at this
location [had it been kicked into the fire]. You definitely wouldn't get it by putting it in the fire. You get the pressure
relief valve to go first. If the pressure relief valve, for some reason, didn't let go, you'd get a split on the side.
Just like they did in the British test where they defeated the pressure relief or whatever. You'd get the highest stresses,
the internal pressure stresses, as we've discussed a couple of times today, are on the side of the cylinder not at the top..."
2.
Dr. Eager says, “9. Dr. Anderson’s fracture groove test results do not establish that Mr. Shalaby applied less than 3 foot pounds
of force...”
This tactic is one of several aimed at misleading the court while at the same time being evasive.
Dr.
Anderson's declaration makes no finding that the tests established a force of "less than 3 foot pounds." The point was
perfectly clear - the torches are designed to break at 26 foot-pounds or so to prevent breakage of the cylinders, but several cylinders
broke at about half that force or less (15 foot-pounds or less). That's all that is required to establish the defect.
3. Dr.
Eager says, "11. [s]ubstantial amount of force can be applied to the torch without the fracture groove failing.”
Another
common tactic is evasiveness, as demonstrated. Dr. Eager testified that 15 foot-pounds of force was "substantial," and it is.
That's just not the point. The point is that the cylinder must not fail at any force less than required to fracture the fracture
groove of the torch handle. The purpose of the fracture groove is to prevent cylinder failure. If a cylinder fails at
below 15 foot-pounds, but the fracture groove is designed to fail at 26 foot-pounds, then the cylinder is defective...or the torch
design is defective.
Re: MAPP gas Explosions and Injuries -
The fact that the manufacturer and distributors knew for many years of these defects, yet did nothing to prevent the injuries that
have occurred, evidences an indifference which probably rises to the level of criminal conduct. The kinds of tactics noted above
result in delays in recall of the bad cylinders, and in injuries such as these -
4. Dr. Eager says, "In actuality, the only way that the center valve housing could bend is if there were deformation in the
“dome” of the cylinder directly opposite from the fracture."
This tactic is simply untruth, contradicted by photographs
Dr. Eager has already seen (click to see photographs )-
The manufacturers and distributors of these defective MAPP gas cylinders and torches (Bernzomatic and Worthington) have resorted to
misinformation, rather than recalling the defective products so that other people don't suffer these horrific burn injuries. Worthington Industries utilizes its "World renownend expert in the field of metallurgy," Dr. Thomas Eager of MIT, a brilliant man
whom has chosen to support Worthington's lies. It is clear from Dr. Eager's statements that he knows the truth -
Worthington also tries to use its "metallurgy" expert to re-interpret deposition testimony...to actually say that the
witnesses said things they did not say. For example, two witnesses in a particular case testified that a failing cylinder
bent exactly in the same way all these cylinders from all these other cases bent - at the area of separation (see "Defect"
tab photos of the cylinders). The witnesses, two rangers, were also asked if they observed any evidence of misuse of the
cylinder (for example, bending of the dome, or anything else), and they testified that they saw nothing more than “normal
wear and tear.” They also testified: "At the explosion part, or whatever the break in the cylinder was, is where it
was actually bent" - the same as all the cylinders shown under the "defect" tab.
