White Goods Appliance Fires

As is often the case with domestic kitchen fires, there were numerous white goods in the kitchen, several of which were in use at the time of the fire.  The fire damage in the kitchen was so severe that it was not possible, based solely on the patterns of fire damage, to determine where the fire started.

The witness accounts were that the fire was discovered when the property was empty; the occupant had placed several items of freshly laundered clothing in a vented tumble dryer and started the drying cycle shortly before leaving.  The items being dried at the time of the fire were reportedly chef’s jackets and trousers.  It was therefore anticipated that they might have been contaminated with vegetable oil.

The well-established, though not widely appreciated by the general public, phenomenon of self-heating can cause fires in tumble dryers.  If fabrics that are contaminated with vegetable oil (or other similar substances with a propensity to self-heat) are dried in a tumble dryer, the heat used to dry the items can initiate a self-heating reaction.  Self-heating occurs as a result of a chemical exothermic (heat generating) reaction that can generate sufficient heat to cause ignition of the drying load.  

The fire Service was alerted to the incident by a passer-by that noticed smoke issuing from the building; they found the property secure and had to force entry to fight the fire that was burning in the kitchen.

The Hawkins’ investigator took photographs throughout the property to document the patterns of fire damage and any potentially relevant lifestyle indicators (such as the use of candles and the presence of smokers’ materials).

Within the kitchen, along with the tumble dryer, there was also a washing machine, undercounter fridge and freezer, microwave over, electric hob and electric oven.  All of the appliances were plugged in and switched on at the sockets.  Based on the witness accounts, only the tumble dryer and the fridge and freezer were switched on and in use.

Detailed and careful examination of the fixed wiring installation at the property confirmed that it had only sustained damage consistent with external fire attack and was not associated with the cause of the fire.

The tumble dryer’s plug fuse was tested electrically and it was found the fuse had operated (blown).  The fuse had sustained very little heat damage and so it was likely to have operated due to electrical overload rather than heat/fire attack. 

The drying load had sustained severe fire damage; it was photographed and recovered for possible chemical analysis to check for the presence of vegetable oil (or similar substances with a propensity to self-heat).  The tumble dryer’s supply flex was examined but no evidence of localised melting damage, such as might be caused by electric arcing activity, was observed.  Throughout the initial examination of the tumble dryer at the scene, it was photographed extensively.

There were no manufacture’s markings remaining on the tumble dryer.  However, based on the investigator’s knowledge of the design characteristics of several well-known manufacturers of tumble dryers, they were able to confirm the manufacturer.  Hawkins maintains a database of photographs of fire damaged white goods to assist its investigators in the identification of appliances in similar circumstances.    

The tumble dryer was carefully packaged and arrangements were made for it to be transported to the nearest Hawkins’ laboratory for detailed examination.

The remaining electrical appliances were all examined and photographed in detail, and all of their plug fuses were tested electrically.

The Client was contacted from the scene and provided with an overview of the Expert’s observations.  It was agreed that the tumble dryer would be retained at Hawkins’ evidence store.  Hawkins subsequently issued a Preliminary Appraisal detailing all the salient information provided at the scene along with their observations.  It was suggested in the Preliminary Appraisal that a detailed laboratory examination of the tumble dryer should be carried out and an estimate of the likely fees for this work was included.  Since the laboratory examination would result in the destruction of evidence it was recommended that the manufacturer be invited to attend. 

A subsequent detailed laboratory examination of the tumble dryer, involving representatives from the manufacture and their insurer, found evidence of localised melting damage at the tumble dryer’s heating element.  This damage could not have been caused by the fire and was clearly the cause of the fire.  The localised damage to the tumble dryer’s heating element could not have been caused by a fire starting due to self-heating of the drying load so, although the load had been retained, no chemical analysis was carried out.

The work carried out by Hawkins’ provided the basis for a recovery action against the manufacturer.  It is also understood that the manufacturer subsequently pursued a recovery action against the supplier of the heating element.