Fire Investigation Expert’s Analysis of Burn Patterns Admitted

Defendants owned and managed an apartment complex called The Trails at Flat Rock in Columbus, Georgia. In October of 2022, a fire occurred in Building A of the apartment complex. Kevin Ford, who was staying in unit A-24 with tenant Anthony Thorpe, died in the fire. Plaintiff, the administrator of Ford’s estate, asserted negligence claims against Defendants based on Ford’s death, alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused Ford’s death and pre-death pain and suffering. Plaintiff intended to support these claims by proffering evidence of negligent inspection, testing, repair, and maintenance of the apartment’s sprinkler system—including expert testimony of Robert Bell, Frank Hagan, and Gregory Gorbett. Defendants argued that the testimony of these three experts should be excluded.

Fire Investigation Expert Witnesses

Robert Keith Bell is a certified fire investigator with more than thirty years of experience performing private fire investigations and working for the Georgia State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Want to know more about the challenges Robert Bell has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Frank E. Hagan is a mechanical engineer with more than thirty years of experience who specializes in fire and explosion consulting. 

Get the full story on challenges to Frank Hagan’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Gregory E. Gorbett holds a PhD in fire protection engineering and works as a professor in the Fire Protection and Safety Engineering Technology Program at Eastern Kentucky University.

Discover more cases with Gregory Gorbett as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

Discussion by the Court

Robert Bell

Bell opined that the fire originated in the kitchen of apartment A-23. Defendants contended that Bell’s testimony did not apply the scientific method outlined in NFPA 921. Those steps are: (1) recognizing the need; (2) defining the problem; (3) collecting the data; (4) analyzing the data; (5) developing hypotheses; (6) testing the hypotheses; and (7) selecting the hypotheses. The Court found Defendants’ arguments unpersuasive.

First, Defendants contended that Bell’s investigation was insufficient because he ruled out the living room and balcony of A-23 as the fire’s origin without collecting evidence and data from those areas. Defendants acknowledged that it was impossible for Bell to collect such evidence and data because there was nothing left of A-23’s living room and balcony due to the fire damage. Bell examined burn patterns, Matterport scans, and photographs of the fire to rule out the living room and balcony as possible areas of origin.

Next, Defendants argued that Bell’s investigation was incomplete because he did not interview A-23’s resident. During his investigation, Bell reviewed investigation reports that included statements A-23’s resident made to investigators. The Court is not persuaded that Bell’s failure to follow up with A-23’s resident under these circumstances renders his opinions unreliable.

Finally, Defendants asserted that Bell’s investigation was incomplete because he did not conduct testing on the contents of a visibly burned pot even though he concluded that the fire started on the range top of A-23 due to careless use of cooking materials. Bell testified that based on the burn damage and burn patterns on the pot, he knew something in the pot itself must have burned. Bell further explained that in reaching his opinion, he considered evidence from the range top and examined burn patterns in the kitchen.

Frank Hagan and Gregory Gorbett

Hagan and Gorbett concluded that a sprinkler in the kitchen of A-23 failed to extinguish the fire on the stove top in the kitchen, which allowed the fire to spread to the rest of the building. Defendants argued that the opinion testimony of Hagan and Gorbett should be excluded because they relied on some of Bell’s opinions in reaching their own. Defendants contended that if Bell’s testimony is excluded, then the testimony of Hagan and Gorbett must be excluded too.

As discussed above, the Court declined to exclude Bell’s testimony.

Held

The Court denied the Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Robert Bell, Frank Hagan, and Gregory Gorbett.

Key Takeaway:

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that an expert’s testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data. Under Rule 702, an expert may rely on the reliable opinions of other experts. Therefore, Hagan and Gorbett may rely on Bell’s opinions in forming their own conclusions. 

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Kimora Washington V. GWR Management LLC Et Al
Docket Number:	4:24cv81
Court Name:	United States District Court, Georgia Middle
Order Date:	October 07, 2025