Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Grand Rapids-Market Place, LLC v. Viking Corporation, the testimony of a Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness played a crucial role in resolving a dispute related to an unintended discharge from a fire suppression system, which caused substantial property damage.
Background of the Case
On June 25, 2019, a commercial property owned by Grand Rapids-Market Place, LLC experienced a major water loss incident when the fire sprinkler system activated without a fire present. The sprinkler system, designed and manufactured by Viking Corporation, had only recently been installed. The sudden and unanticipated discharge of water caused considerable damage to interior fixtures, flooring, merchandise, and tenant spaces.
Grand Rapids-Market Place filed suit against Viking Corporation in federal district court, alleging that the sprinkler system was defective in design and/or manufacture, and seeking compensation for physical damage, lost revenue, and remediation costs. Viking denied the allegations, asserting that the system was installed or maintained improperly by third parties and that its components met all relevant safety and performance standards.
Role of the Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness
To prove their case, the plaintiffs retained Jerry Dahl, a forensic engineer and fire protection specialist, as a Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness. Dahl was tasked with investigating the root cause of the sprinkler activation and determining whether the fault lay in the product itself.
His work included:
-
Physical inspection of the sprinkler components: Dahl conducted a lab-based failure analysis on the activated sprinkler head, examining the frangible bulb and surrounding hardware for signs of breakage or fatigue inconsistent with fire-induced activation.
-
Review of maintenance and installation records: He evaluated whether the system had been subjected to improper handling or exposure that could have caused premature activation.
-
Research into manufacturer data and standards: Dahl compared the condition and performance of the sprinkler head with data from prior incidents and relevant NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) standards.
-
Expert opinion and courtroom testimony: Dahl concluded that the sprinkler head likely suffered from a defect in the bulb assembly, which caused it to fracture under normal conditions. He testified that neither improper installation nor unusual environmental stressors were evident.
Court Proceedings and Findings
Viking Corporation challenged Dahl’s testimony under the Daubert standard, arguing that his opinions were speculative and not based on testing consistent with industry norms. However, the court found that Dahl’s methods—including microscopic inspection, manufacturer comparison, and reference to recognized standards—were sufficient to establish reliability. His extensive background and clear articulation of the basis for his conclusions reinforced the admissibility of his expert opinion.
The court denied Viking’s motion to exclude, and Dahl’s expert testimony was presented at trial.
Based largely on his analysis and explanation, the jury found that a manufacturing defect in the sprinkler head caused the accidental discharge. Grand Rapids-Market Place was awarded damages for physical loss, tenant disruption, and repair costs, totaling more than $600,000.
Legal Significance
This case highlights the importance of expert testimony in product liability cases involving highly technical systems like fire sprinklers. A Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness not only provides clarity in understanding complex mechanical and safety devices but also lends crucial credibility to a party’s claims or defenses.
Moreover, the court’s decision to admit Dahl’s testimony over objections shows the judiciary’s recognition that firsthand inspection and methodical analysis—when rooted in accepted engineering practices—are sufficient to meet evidentiary standards.
Conclusion
Grand Rapids-Market Place, LLC v. Viking Corporation underscores the central role that a Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness can play in proving defect-based claims. Through detailed technical analysis and courtroom clarity, expert witnesses like Dahl can significantly influence a jury’s understanding of how and why a critical safety system failed—shaping both the verdict and broader industry accountability.