Products Liability Law Reporter

A Connecticut superior court held that summary judgment for the defense was warranted in a case where a plaintiff alleged a gas grill was defective but failed to present expert testimony about the alleged defects.

Jacob Khybery replaced the propane tank on his Weber Summit S-670 gas grill. After igniting the grill, flames erupted at the regulator area beside the connector hose, which injured Khybery. He sued Weber-Stephen Products LLC, alleging that the grill was defectively designed. The defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to disclose an expert witness to testify about the grill’s alleged defects.

Granting the motion, the court noted that the design of a gas grill and the placement of an emergency shut-off tool are issues that go beyond the ordinary knowledge and experience of lay persons. Citing case law, the court said that absent direct evidence of a product defect, lay witnesses and common experience are insufficient to remove a case from the realm of speculation, and the plaintiff requires expert testimony to establish a prima facie case.

Here, the court said, the plaintiff’s claims regarding the grill design and the feasibility of a secondary safety tool are issues beyond the ken of the average juror. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff had not alleged a res ipsa type case, which would not need expert testimony to reach a conclusion that a product had failed to meet consumer expectations.

Consequently, the court found that summary judgment for the defense was warranted.

Citation: Khybery v. Weber-Stephen Prods. LLC, 2022 WL 17818266 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2022).