On December 08, 2004 an explosion occurred in a bakery located in Chattanooga Tennessee. More specifically, the explosion was centered in an oven located inside the bakery. The oven that was the subject of this investigation is shown in figure 1. Although it wasn't learned until much later, the bakery had been having trouble with the oven since it was initially installed. As a result of the explosion, it was the bakery's contention that the servicing company was somehow responsible for the explosion that occurred and the subsequent damage.
Fig 1 Oven involved in explosion
After approximately one and a half years of non-use, a joint inspection of the oven was conducted on June 06, 2006. At this time, it was learned that two engineering firms had been involved in the initial investigation of the explosion and had taken possession of evidence. The two firms that were initially involved were no longer involved and a new engineering firm representing the bakery was now in possession of the evidence and control of the scene. While inspecting the burner and it's wiring, it was noted that some of the wires had been disconnected.
Fig 2 Wires removed from control
It was later learned from the bakery's engineer that the evidence had been received in the condition in which it was observed. It was further noted that there was no way to determine where the wires had been originally connected and no documentation to show the condition of the burner and wiring when originally taken into custody. As a result, it appeared that evidence spoliation was a possibility. The burner and control are shown in figure 2.
After all component examinations were completed, the case was arbitrated. The bakery (applicant) continued to assert that the service company was responsible for the explosion as a result of negligence in wiring the burner control. The service company (respondant) responded by stating that the wires were found disconnected from the burner control and in the wrong place. Furthermore, the service company stated that there was no evidence to show that the service technician erred and was at fault. In the end, it was the judgment of the panel that the bakery failed to prove its case. That is, because the positions of the wires that were supposed to have been attached to the burner control could not be verified, the panel decided that the bakery did not conclusively prove that the service company incorrectly wired the control.
