Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc.
| Citation | 128 F.Supp.2d 952 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:99CV00101.,1:99CV00101. |
| Parties | Douglas M. BLEVINS, Plaintiff, v. NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Mary Lynn Tate, The Tate Law Firm, Abingdon, VA, for Douglas M. Blevins.
Calvin S. Spencer, Jr., McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Charlottesville, VA, Brickford Y. Brown, Dennis Joseph Whelan, III, McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA, for New Holland North America, Inc.
In this products liability action, both parties have moved in limine to exclude certain expert witness testimony to be presented at trial by the opposing party. In addition, the defendant manufacturer has moved in limine to exclude evidence of prior product accidents. The motions will be denied in part and granted in part.
The plaintiff in this case, Douglas M. Blevins, seeks damages because of injuries received by him in a farm accident involving a hay baler manufactured by the defendant, New Holland North America, Inc. ("New Holland"). The court earlier granted partial summary judgment to the defendant as to the plaintiff's claim of breach of warranty, leaving for trial the claims based on negligence. See Blevins v. New Holland N. America, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 747, 751 (W.D.Va.2000). In advance of trial, the parties have presented three motions in limine for resolution, based on deposition testimony and expert disclosure statements. Those motions have been brief and argued, and are ripe for decision.
The alleged defective product designed and manufactured by New Holland is a Model 644 Large Round Baler, an agricultural implement designed to be towed and powered by a tractor and used to bale hay. After field-dried hay is picked up by the baler, it is made into a round bale and discharged through the rear tail gate of the machine.
On the day of the accident, the plaintiff, a farm worker, was operating a recently-purchased Model 644 in a hay field of his employer, Vannoy Farms. After he had completed a bale along the side of a hill, he stopped the tractor and reduced but did not kill the engine, thus allowing the baler's machinery to continue to run.1 He then got down off of the tractor and walked to the rear of the baler as the tail gate was opening to discharge the newlymade bale, so that he could manually prevent the bale from rolling down the hill. After handling the bale, and as Blevins walked beside the baler to resume his seat on the tractor, he noticed some hay sticking out of the baler and grabbed at it with his right hand in order to pull it out. Instead, his hand and arm were pulled into the machine to a "nip point" between a belt and a scraper. Unable to extricate himself for some minutes, he eventually used his pocket knife to cut the belt and free his arm.
As a result of the accident, Blevins suffered severe injuries to his hand and arm, including amputation of his thumb and index finger.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), the plaintiff has disclosed the opinions of his expert, John B. Sevart, and the defendant moves to exclude some, but not all, of those opinions as unreliable or legally insufficient.
In his disclosure statement, the expert Sevart expressed the following opinions:
1. The design of the round baler could have been such that the belt drive system would disengage whenever the tail gate was lifted.
2. The round baler could have been provided with an emergency stop system that would enable a person caught in the rotating components of the round baler to stop the powered motion of the machine and prevent further injuries. The emergency stop mechanism could be made to be actuated by a pull cord located along the areas where it is foreseeable that an operator is likely to be entangled in the machine.
3. The round baler could have been provided with guarding which would enclose the nip points on the machine. The guarding could have been provided with extended side panels that would enclose the nip points at the sides of the machine when the tail gate is lifted.
4. Appropriate warnings and instructions should have been provided with/on the round baler, identifying the hazards present in the operation and maintenance of the machine and providing clear, practical instructions for avoiding the hazards while operating the round baler.
(Letter from Sevart of 1/19/00, at 2-3.)
New Holland contends that above opinions numbered three (concerning the emergency stop system) and four (concerning warnings and instructions) are inadmissible. In addition, New Holland objects to Sevart's opinion, expressed in his disclosure and in his deposition testimony, that Blevins' injuries were "substantially enhanced" because of the absence of an emergency stop system. Finally, referring to Sevart's deposition testimony that "more guarding" is required by government regulation in Germany than in the United States (Sevart Dep. at 156-57), New Holland objects to any testimony by the witness concerning "foreign regulations or standards" relating to the machine in question.
Sevart is a licensed professional engineer and a former professor of mechanical engineering at Wichita State University. He is a frequent plaintiff's expert in personal injury cases, expressing opinions on such varied subjects as the design of an earth mover's breaking and steering systems, see Garst v. Gen. Motors Corp., 207 Kan. 2, 484 P.2d 47, 54-57 (1971); a camp stove's gas cap, see Volz v. Coleman Co., 155 Ariz. 563, 748 P.2d 1187, 1188-90 (1986); operator safety restraints on fork-lifts, see Goldman v. Phantom Freight, Inc., 162 Mich.App. 472, 413 N.W.2d 433, 435 (1987); and safety devices and warnings on railroad hopper cars, see Garay v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 60 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1168-71 (D.Kan.1999).
Sevart has a particular interest in emergency stop systems for agricultural machinery and has written several articles on the subject. In a paper Sevart prepared for presentation to a 1983 meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, he reported that while emergency stop systems are frequently found on manufacturing equipment, they are not generally used on agricultural equipment, even though agricultural equipment can be equally as dangerous. Sevart described the problem as follows:
An all too common accident associated with agricultural equipment is one in which the operator becomes entangled in a powered machine and is unable either to free himself or to turn off the machine, or even to declutch the power. Typically, the initial injury is not unduly severe and may not produce either serious lacerations or broken bones. However, as live pressure is held on the trapped hand, arm or leg, extensive damage is done to the muscle structure and to the nerve and circulatory systems. In time, serious burn injury may result from friction. This type of accident has occurred frequently where pressure feed rolls are present such as on round-bale hay balers.
J.B. Sevart, Design of Emergency Stop Systems for Agricultural Machinery (American Soc'y of Agric. Eng'rs 1983) 2. (New Holland's Mot. in Limine Ex. G.)
According to Sevart, for towed — as opposed to self-powered — agricultural machinery, the most efficient emergency stop system is a positive mechanical stop on the drive shaft, activated by the operator pulling on a cable placed at a hazard location. See id. at 7-8. Sevart concluded that the concept of an emergency stop system for agricultural machinery is "technically and economically feasible and does not adversely affect the utility of the machinery." Id. at 10.
New Holland first attacks Sevart's opinions under the doctrines announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny, particularly Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). New Holland does not contest Sevart's qualifications in terms of his education or experience. Rather, Sevart's opinion that the Model 644 should have contained an emergency stop system is unreliable according to New Holland because (1) Sevart failed to perform any "scientific testing"; (2) his views have not been "peer reviewed"; and (3) an emergency stop system has not been installed on any hay balers manufactured in the United States, or imposed by any governmental standard or regulation in this country.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended effective December 1, 2000, has adopted the Daubert principles, and states as follows:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
The advisory committee note to the amended rule succinctly describes the proper method of applying these principles:
Daubert set forth a non-exclusive checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. The specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are (1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested — that is, whether the expert's theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcolm v. Evenflo Co., Inc.
...claimed had ignited the building fire. McBurney, 771 A.2d at 911-12. ¶ 52 Evenflo also points to Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc., 128 F.Supp.2d 952, 960-61 (W.D.Va.2001), in which the court granted the defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior accidents involving ......
-
Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co., Civil Action No. 3:17–cv–109
...safety" step) before consumer expectations are assessed. See, e.g., Alevromagiros, 993 F.2d at 421 ; Blevins v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 128 F.Supp.2d 952, 957–58 (W.D. Va. 2001) ; Lemons, 906 F.Supp. at 331–33.This "expert safety" step authorizes courts to rely on expert testimony to dete......
-
Putman v. Savage Arms, Inc.
...1986) (a proposed alternative pinch point placement and guarding device were implemented by other manufacturers); Blevins v. New Holland, 128 F.Supp.2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001) (a plaintiff's alternative emergency stop design, while notused on agricultural equipment, was used on industrial equip......
-
Yates v. Ford Motor Co.
...E.g. Eghnayem v. Boston Sci. Corp., No. 2:13-CV-07965, 2014 WL 5465741, at *5 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2014); Blevins v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952, 959 (W.D.Va. 2001). The court adheres to this reasoning. Where the specific evidence regarding these bans has not yet been pres......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...Citing Stevens v. Parke Davis & Co ., 9 Cal.3d 51, 65, 107 Cal. Rptr. 45 (1973). Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc ., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001), involved a farm worker who was injured while operating a hay baler. The defendant objected to any testimony by the expert witnes......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...injury would likely have occurred because of the absence of an emergency stop system. See Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001). In Johnson v. General Motors , an expert stated that prior to 1978, General Motors sold automobiles overseas that had la......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...Citing Stevens v. Parke Davis & Co ., 9 Cal.3d 51, 65, 107 Cal. Rptr. 45 (1973). Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc ., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001), involved a farm worker who was injured while operating a hay baler. The defendant objected to any testimony by the expert witnes......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...injury would likely have occurred because of the absence of an emergency stop system. See Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 952 (W.D. Va. 2001). In Johnson v. General Motors , an expert stated that prior to 1978, General Motors sold automobiles overseas that had la......