Recent Product Liability Decision Provides Insight Into Circumstantial Evidence, Inferences, And Expert Evidence

Introduction

The recent Alberta decision of ATCO Energy Solutions Ltd v Energy Dynamics Ltd, 2024 ABKB 162 ("ATCO Energy") provides a helpful review of product liability law, discussing how circumstantial evidence may be used and how resulting inferences and theories of negligence can be rebutted.

ATCO Energy involved the manufacture of an allegedly defective engine piston. In July 2014, a natural gas compressor engine belonging to the plaintiff, ATCO Energy Solutions Ltd. ("ATCO"), failed when one of its 16 pistons fractured into numerous pieces.1 The defendants (collectively, "EnDyn") had previously manufactured and supplied replacement pistons as part of ATCO's engine overhaul work.2 ATCO argued that a loose piston plug caused the failure. The piston at issue – piston 8R – was destroyed, and the compressor engine required multiple repairs, although the total costs attributable to the incident were disputed.3