Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc.

Decision Date15 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. 77-1413,77-1413
Citation590 F.2d 844
Parties3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1058 Charles C. RANDOLPH, d/b/a Hardens Fried Chicken, Appellant, v. COLLECTRAMATIC, INC., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Jesse L. Leeds, Muskogee, Okl., for appellant.

Thomas R. Brett and Roy C. Breedlove of Jones, Givens, Brett, Gotcher, Doyle & Bogan, Inc., Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.

Before McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and McKAY, Circuit Judges.

BARRETT, Circuit Judge.

Charles C. Randolph (Randolph) appeals from an order of the trial court granting a directed verdict to Collectramatic, Inc. (Collectramatic). Jurisdiction vests by reason of diversity.

Collectramatic is a manufacturer and distributor of pressure cookers intended for commercial use. In the fall of 1975, Collectramatic sold Randolph four new pressure cookers for use in his restaurant located in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The Collectramatic pressure cooker consists primarily of a metal reservoir which holds approximately 8 gallons of cooking oil. The reservoir sits atop four legs approximately 18 inches off the floor. Attached to the bottom of the reservoir is a cylindrical container, called a Collectramat, which extends downward to a point two inches from the floor. The Collectramat's function is to catch hot oil drippings from the cooking process. The Collectramat is attached to the reservoir by screwing it into place in a hole located at the bottom of the container. In order to assure that the Collectramat will not disengage and leak hot oil, a pin can be inserted into the machine which, when used properly, prevents the Collectramat from unscrewing.

On June 6, 1976, Randolph was using the Collectramatic pressure cookers when one of the cookers exploded causing hot oil to spew from the Collectramat injuring him.

On July 29, 1976, Randolph filed an action in state court seeking compensation from Collectramatic for injuries he allegedly sustained in the pressure cooker explosion. Randolph's complaint was premised on the theory that the pressure cooker was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous in that it lacked proper warning devices and safety characteristics. The complaint also set up claims based upon the doctrines of negligence, warranty, and Res ipsa loquitur.

Following service of summons, Collectramatic petitioned for removal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The petition for removal was granted. Collectramatic answered Randolph's complaint by general denial of the allegations contained therein and by asserting various affirmative defenses. The case was set for jury trial on April 11, 1977. At that time, Randolph abandoned his negligence claim and chose to proceed to trial on the theory of manufacturers' products liability.

Following the presentation of Randolph's evidence, Collectramatic moved for a directed verdict which was granted by the court on April 13, 1977.

On appeal Randolph contends that the district court erred in (1) refusing to allow him to state his opinion (as a lay witness) as to what safety devices should have been incorporated into the design of the Collectramatic pursuant to Fed.Rules Evid. Rule 701, 28 U.S.C.A. and (2) granting Collectramatic's motion for a directed verdict.

I.

Rule 701, Supra, provides as follows:

Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

The primary purpose of Rule 701 is to allow nonexpert witnesses to give opinion testimony when, as a matter of practical necessity, events which they have personally observed cannot otherwise be fully presented to the court or the jury. See, Weinstein's Evidence P 701(02) (1977). Generally, however, this rule does not permit a lay witness to express an opinion as to matters which are beyond the realm of common experience and which require the special skill and knowledge of an expert witness.

As stated in Jones on Evidence . . . (I)t is not to be inferred that the opinions of ordinary witnesses are competent as to subjects which require special study and skill and which are proper for the testimony of the expert as distinguished from the ordinary witness . . . . 2 Jones on Evidence, § 14:3 (1972).

We recognize that at least one opinion has allowed a lay witness to state his opinion as to the safety of a particular design in a products liability case pursuant to Rule 701. Farner v. Paccar, Inc., 562 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1977).

In Farner two truckdrivers were killed instantly when their truck veered out of its lane and crashed into a concrete column on Interstate 90 near Cle Elum, Washington. Jean Farner, as the administratrix of her husband's estate, brought an action alleging that Paccar negligently designed, tested and manufactured the truck's "air leaf" suspension system. At trial, testimony by a lay witness was admitted which indicated that the witness had personally observed several springs manufactured by Paccar break on his Peterbilt trucks prior to the installation of safety chains; that subsequent to this modification, another spring failure was experienced; and that the truck's axle was held in place by the safety chain thereby preventing a serious accident. The admission of the lay witness' opinion that the Paccar suspension system was improperly designed due to its failure to incorporate the safety chains was affirmed by the Court:

Paccar also argues that there was insufficient foundation to permit Robert Curtis to give his opinion "on the proper design of suspension systems for trucks." This argument is without merit. The qualification of experts and the admission of opinion testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Citations.) We agree with the trial court that Curtis, who had been in the trucking business almost thirty years and who, at the time of trial, controlled twelve tractors, five of them with Peterbilt tractors (a division of Paccar) with air leaf suspension systems, could testify as to the Simple use of the safety chains either as a lay witness speaking within his own knowledge and perception, See Fed.R.Evid. 701, or as an expert qualified by knowledge, experience or skill. (Citations.) (Emphasis supplied.) 562 F.2d at pp. 528, 529.

We need not decide whether this Court will follow the rule announced in Farner v. Paccar, supra, inasmuch as the Farner case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case on its facts.

In the case at bar, the testimony of Randolph indicated that he had previously worked in the fast food business for approximately five years and that, during that time, he had used pressure cookers of different types. He further testified, although in conclusory terms, that he knew how the pressure cooker machines were manufactured, what their component parts were, and how their systems operated. He stated that he had serviced, cleaned and operated pressure cooker machines similar to, and including, the one here involved. Finally, he stated that he considered himself an expert in the "knowledge and operation" of pressure cooker machines. Based on this foundation, Randolph would have testified, had the court so allowed, that the subject pressure cooker was defectively designed in that it lacked safety shields enclosing the bottom of the machine where the hot oil escaped.

The question of whether or not a lay witness is qualified to testify as to any matter of opinion is a preliminary determination within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision must be upheld unless shown to be clearly erroneous or a clear result of an abuse of judicial discretion. See: Cardwell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 504 F.2d 444, 448 (6th Cir. 1974); Spitzer v. Stitchman, 278 F.2d 402, 409 (2d Cir. 1960).

There is uniformity among the courts that the testimony of witnesses, both in civil and criminal cases, is admissible if predicated upon concrete facts within their own observation and recollection that is facts perceived from their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions or conclusions drawn from such facts. United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 1048, 1053 (10th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • United States v. Starks
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 27, 2022
    ...require the special skill and knowledge of an expert witness." James River Ins. , 658 F.3d at 1214 (quoting Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc. , 590 F.2d 844, 846 (10th Cir. 1979) ). Knowledge drawn from experience in a specialized job—including, as here, a law enforcement officer's knowledge......
  • Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • November 27, 1984
    ...his views on the matter in hand. 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 555 (Chadbourn rev. 1979) (emphasis added). See: Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 848 (10th Cir.1979); Arnold v. Loose, 352 F.2d 959, 962 (3rd Cir.1965) (applying Pennsylvania law); Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F.......
  • U.S. v. Paiva
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 4, 1989
    ...which were beyond the realm of common experience and which required special knowledge and skill. See Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 846-47, 848 (10th Cir.1979); 2 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 555-57 (Chadbourne rev. 1979); 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2090 (Chadbourne rev. 1978). In recen......
  • Burnside v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2015
    ...layperson or does it require some specialized knowledge or skill beyond the realm of everyday experience? See Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 846 (10th Cir.1979) (observing that lay witness may not express opinion “as to matters which are beyond the realm of common experienc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Questions Calling for a Conclusion
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2016 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • August 2, 2016
    ...fire. The statements were opinions that required special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. 4 Randolf v. Collectramatic , Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1979). 5 Cole v. United States , 327 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1964). 6 Nichols v. Marshall , 486 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1973). 7 New York Li......
  • Questions calling for a conclusion
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2018 Testimonial evidence
    • August 2, 2018
    ...the ire. The statements were opinions that required special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. 5 Randolf v. Collectramatic , Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1979). 6 Cole v. United States , 327 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1964). 7 Nichols v. Marshall , 486 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1973). 8 New York......
  • Questions calling for a conclusion
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2019 Testimonial evidence
    • August 2, 2019
    ...the ire. The statements were opinions that required special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. 5 Randolf v. Collectramatic , Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1979). 6 Cole v. United States , 327 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1964). 7 Nichols v. Marshall , 486 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1973). 8 New York......
  • Questions Calling for a Conclusion
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2020 Testimonial evidence
    • August 2, 2020
    ...the ire. The statements were opinions that required special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. 5 Randolf v. Collectramatic , Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1979). 6 Cole v. United States , 327 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1964). 7 Nichols v. Marshall , 486 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1973). 8 New York......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT