Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca

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: