DEFENSE TACTICS - PRIMARILY DISHONESTY AND EVASIVENESS
 
               Click here to view Dr. Anderson's declaration describing the testing and defects.
 
               Click here to view Dr. Eager's response to Dr. Anderson's declaration of findings.
 
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 -

MAPP Gas Cylinder and Torch Injury Database
(Bernzomatic, Worthington, Lenox, Ace, Sears, Thermadyne, etc.)

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 )-

DESCRIPTION
DEFECT
EXPERT
INTERNAL DISPUTES
MANUFACTURER
IRRESPONSIBILITY
DEFENSE TACTICS
LAWSUITS
APPELLATE
CONTACT
Sitemap
bernz007034.jpg bernz007033.jpg bernz007032.jpg bernz007031.jpg bernz007030.jpg bernz007029.jpg bernz007028.jpg bernz007027.jpg bernz007026.jpg bernz007025.jpg bernz007024.jpg
DESCRIPTION
DEFECT
EXPERT
INTERNAL DISPUTES
MANUFACTURER
IRRESPONSIBILITY
DEFENSE TACTICS
LAWSUITS
WEBSITE DISPUTE
CONTACT
Sitemap
bernz007023.jpg bernz007022.jpg bernz007021.jpg bernz007020.jpg bernz007019.jpg bernz007018.jpg bernz007017.jpg bernz007016.jpg bernz007015.jpg bernz007014.jpg bernz007013.jpg
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. 
Test Cylinder
DESCRIPTION
DEFECT
EXPERT
INTERNAL DISPUTES
MANUFACTURER
IRRESPONSIBILITY
DEFENSE TACTICS
LAWSUITS
WEBSITE DISPUTE
CONTACT
Sitemap
bernz007012.jpg bernz007011.jpg bernz007010.jpg bernz007009.jpg bernz007008.jpg bernz007007.jpg bernz007006.jpg bernz007005.jpg bernz007004.jpg bernz007003.jpg bernz007002.jpg
This is very upsetting. 
(Click here to see the deception they present on their appellate briefs, and evidence of the deception)