Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT EVIDENCE—SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT—9th Cir.: Appellate court affirms lower court’s order excluding expert testimony and granting summary judgment to portable firepit manufacturer, (Jan 12, 2026)

By Kerry McInerney, J.D.

The consumer needed expert testimony to establish causation that could raise a material issue of fact that the portable firepit caused his injury.

In a products liability suit brought by a consumer who was injured while using a portable firepit, a federal district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony and did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of portable firepits and a retailer that sold the product to the consumer. The expert testimony did not meet the thresholds of relevance and reliability and, thus, did not establish causation (Jensen v. Camco Manufacturing, LLC, No. 24-7092 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026)).

Background. After purchasing a Camco Little Red Campfire, a portable firepit, sold by Camping World, a consumer was injured while using the firepit. According to the consumer, flames “exploded” from the device, causing severe burns to his leg. The consumer filed suit against the manufacturer of the firepit, Camco Manufacturing, LLC, and the retailer, CWI, LLC, doing business as Camping World, alleging product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. He retained an engineering expert to establish causation. The manufacturer and retailer moved for summary judgment.

Expert testimony. Based on the record, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the expert did not ground his testimony in “reliable principles and methods.” While performing tests on the firepit, the expert identified potential defects. However, the appellate court noted that he did not discover blockage or debris in the combustion chamber, and only one leak that, by his own admission, “wouldn’t [have been] sufficient to cause the incident described by [Plaintiff].” After failing to discover a root cause of the consumer’s injuries, the expert resorted to speculation. He thought there should be a “transient blockage somewhere,” but was unable to identify any blockage. Even if he had identified a transient blockage, he conceded that, based on his testing, a “transient blockage” combined with a leak “would be insufficient” to create the incident that injured the consumer.

Therefore, the appellate court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony. Claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty each require proof of causation, and the consumer could not show causation without the expert’s testimony. Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and the retailer.

The case is No. 24-7092.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Michael E. Medina, Jr. (Brown, Crowell, & Friedman, PLLC) for Erick Jensen. Daniel Joseph O'Connor, III (O'Connor Law, PC) for CAMCO Manufacturing, LLC and CWI, LLC and CWI, INC.

Companies: CAMCO Manufacturing, LLC; CWI, LLC; CWI, INC.; Good Sam Enterprises, LLC; Levi Strauss & Co.; Camping World Holdings, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions ExpertEvidenceNews SportsandRecEquipmentNews CausationNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews GuamNews