In Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2012) (No. 12-1451), the Eighth Circuit addressed defendant’s challenge to the jury verdict for the plaintiffs on their claim that defendant’s dryer was defective and caused the fire that burned their house. Defendant argued that the admission of plaintiffs’ fire investigator expert’s testimony was error. Defendant’s primary argument was that plaintiff’s expert merely “eyeballed” the burned-out home and the three destroyed appliances therein before ascribing blame to the dryer, instead of following NFPA 921, the National Fire Protection Association’s guide for fire and explosion investigations. Although plaintiff’s expert acknowledged the importance of NFPA 921 in certain fire investigations, he explained that he could not follow certain procedures recommended by NFPA 921 because the total burnout had destroyed much of the evidence required by NFPA 921. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in allowing plaintiffs to present this testimony to the jury, and the jury did not err in crediting this testimony. The court held that the investigation plaintiffs’ expert performed was sufficient because he had observed the fire scene and applied his specialized knowledge and experience to reach an opinion concerning the cause of the fire. Thus, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff.