Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca

More documents

Recommendations

Info

101. Q. And that is stress relevant to what we are talking about?A. Yes.102. Q. And I think we can agree, based on your experience, that each of thesefactors is going to vary residence to residence, community to community?A. That is correct.103. Q. And you don't have any information about any of these factors as theyrelate to Canada; right?A. That is correct,104. Q. I think, on the basis that I am assuming that it is self-evident, I think wecan agree that not all failures in people's polybutylene/acetal plumbingsystems arise from oxidative degradation?A. Are you talking about all failures? No, there are some failures which were causedby other factors, even though the sample might show some degree of oxidation.105. Q. And by `failure' here, we just mean a leak?A. Leak, exactly, that is what I mean by failure, yes.106. Q. And a leak could be caused by the pipe being punctured, for example?A. Of course, that is obvious, sure.
107. Q. And the leak could be caused by the joints separating, any given jointseparating?A. They can, yes.108. Q. And it could be caused by fittings, cracks caused by careless installationand over-crimping?A. Yes.109. Q. There could be a leak in, for example, the pipe caused by faulty extrusionat the manufacturing stage?A. That is a factor.110. Q. And those are all factors that can occur independent from the degree ofoxidative degradation that the pipe or fitting in question has been subjectedto?A. Well, those things can occur, of course, if that is what you are asking me. Ofcourse, they can."Virtually, the same evidence was given by the plaintiffs' other expert witness, Dr. Chudnovsky (seeChudnovsky cross-examination, questions #286-303). 62 While I do not discount the importance of the determination of the issue regarding thesuitability of the defendants' products as a stepping stone to the ultimate determination of liability,it is evident that a finding that either or both of the defendants' products are defective does notrepresent much of a step forward in the overall liability determination. To repeat a prevailingconcern in such cases, it would not be the end of the liability inquiry but only the beginning. It isaxiomatic that an individual inspection of each and every class member's plumbing system willultimately be necessary in order to finally determine the liability of the defendants. This questionis further complicated because at least one of the plaintiffs' experts also acknowledges that not allplumbing systems made from polybutylene will ultimately fail. This is evident from the followingexchange in the cross-examination of Dr. Chudnovsky:
Page 1 and 2: Case Name:Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co.P
Page 3 and 4: to adequately test their products a
Page 5 and 6: completely suitable material from w
Page 7 and 8: does not establish liability on Cel
Page 9 and 10: include persons who do not have a c
Page 11 and 12: The defendants further contend that
Page 13 and 14: Canadian Shopping Centre Inc. v. Du
Page 15 and 16: Punitive Damages10. In light of the
Page 17 and 18: the common issues trial versus the
Page 19: 95. Q. Right. So, typically, houses
Page 23 and 24: out of some judgments to date, and
Page 25 and 26: water pressures, answering the scie
Page 27 and 28: members of the proposed class. Howe

Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?