Reybold Group v. Chemprobe Technologies
In Reybold Group v. Chemprobe Technologies, Del. Supr., 721 A.2d 1267 (1998) the defendant hired a contractor to water proof the exterior wall with a chemical sealant. The day the sealant was supplied; several Reybold employees were forced to leave because of the noxious odor.
The court opined that to establish a prima facie case that the defendant's chemical sealant was defective and the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was not within the common knowledge of laymen and therefore was necessary for the plaintiff to introduce expert testimony in order to prove a prima facie case.
The court rejected the argument that the jury should be permitted to infer that a defect existed from the circumstantial evidence of the odor and its effects alone.