Sask. appeal court orders GM expert to testify in court after SUV bursts into flames

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ordered a General Motors of Canada expert to appear in court after a Saskatchewan man's SUV started on fire on the shoulder of a highway.

In December 2015, Arthur Wells was driving his GMC Envoy west of Kindersley, Sask., when he heard a loud noise coming from the vehicle and started seeing sparks.

Wells was able to pull his vehicle over to the side of the road just before its brakes seemingly failed, and he started rolling backwards down a hill.

Once the vehicle stopped, he couldn't open the doors or windows. Eventually, bystanders smashed out the SUV's windows and pulled the then-84-year-old man out of the vehicle.

Within minutes, the Envoy caught fire and burned to a crisp.

"When the police came and the fire trucks came, there was nothing left of it,"Wells said in an interview with CBC News. "The [SUV] just went up in flames."

In 2017, Wells sued General Motors of Canada over the fire, stating that a manufacturer's fault was to blame.

In the original case, Wells's lawyer asked GM for any documents related to spontaneous under-hood fires in their vehicles from 2005 until 2015 and to cross-examine a company expert who had sent the court a written report on the fire.

A Queen's Bench justice ultimately called the suit a "fishing expedition" and dismissed the case.

However, in March, the province's appeals court overturned the initial judgment, ordering the company's senior technical expert to appear in court for for cross-examination.

The court ruled that the GM expert offered no opinion as to why the vehicle's brakes failed, nor the sound Wells heard before the fire.

"In the context of a fire with no apparent external cause, but with some indication supporting the common sense inference that there may have been manufacturer's defect, [the expert's]general statement cries out for explanation," read the decision.

Wells said he was pleased with the decision. He said the fire was a scary situation.

"I came within a minute of not being here, and I still have trouble getting in and out of vehicles," he said. "For about three months, I didn't even want to get in a vehicle."

The lawsuit questioned whether a faulty door sensor, which was the subject of a recall, could have been at fault. In an affidavit filed for the original case, GM's technical expert said the vehicle had been inspected in the recall and he doubted the sensor was to blame, due to the absence of evidence of high heat in the driver's-side door.

A new court date has not been set.