Crawford v. ITW Food Equip. Grp., LLC

• Decision Date: 21 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-10964,19-10964
• Citation: 977 F.3d 1331
• Parties: Danny CRAWFORD, Betty Ann Crawford, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

977 F.3d 1331

Danny CRAWFORD, Betty Ann Crawford, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10964

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

October 21, 2020

Courtney Rebecca Brewer, John Stewart Mills, Attorney, The Mills Firm, The Bowen House, TALLAHASSEE, FL, Matthew W. Spohrer, Trial Attorney, Robert F. Spohrer, Spohrer & Dodd, PL, JACKSONVILLE, FL, for Plaintiffs - Appellees.

Elizabeth B. Wright, Thompson Hine, LLP, CLEVELAND, OH, Jessica Davidson Miller, Geoffrey M. Wyatt, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC, Laura Beard Renstrom, Holland & Knight, LLP, JACKSONVILLE, FL, for Defendant - Appellant.

Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

Danny Crawford sued ITW Food Equipment Group LLC ("FEG") for negligent product design after his arm was amputated when it came into contact with the unguarded blade of one of FEG's commercial meat saws, the Hobart Model 6614. After a jury trial, Crawford and his wife were awarded $4,050,000. FEG now appeals this verdict on evidentiary and sufficiency of the evidence grounds. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary determinations were within its discretion, and that FEG's other challenges lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Danny Crawford was the meat-market manager at a supermarket in Jacksonville. One Sunday in 2015, Crawford was cutting meat with the Hobart 6614 vertical band saw, manufactured by FEG, when he was called away to fill one of the store's meat cases and speak with associates. Crawford, admittedly distracted, forgot to deploy the meat saw's blade guard. When he returned to the meat saw, he reached for his box cutter. His arm contacted the unsheathed blade and was amputated.

Crawford and his wife Betty Ann Crawford brought a products liability action against FEG, raising both strict liability and negligence design defect claims. The district court held a four-day jury trial. Late during trial, Crawford withdrew his strict liability claim.

Crawford's theory of the case was that FEG negligently designed the Hobart 6614's blade guard. The meat saw used an adjustable guard, meaning that the operator of the saw must manually raise and lower the guard for it to block the blade from coming into contact with meat or the operator's body. Crawford presented the testimony of Professor Ralph Barnett, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and an expert in saw and guard design. Professor Barnett testified that FEG failed to use reasonable care in designing the Hobart 6614 due to its use of an adjustable blade guard. Based on his experience, he testified, this failure to use reasonable care was a contributing cause of Crawford's amputation; had the Hobart 6614 been designed with a self-deploying blade guard, Crawford's injury would not have occurred.

To that end, Professor Barnett designed and built an alternative meat saw, closely modeled on the Hobart 6614, that employed a self-deploying blade guard. His design used a foot pedal connected to air compressors to lower the guard when the pedal was depressed and raise the guard when released, so that when the saw's operator walks away, the guard automatically deploys.

In addition to Professor Barnett's testimony, Crawford presented the testimony of Dr. Mark Edwards, a human factors engineer who discussed the inverse relationship between job performance and workload, as well as how workers can fail to see objects that are not the focus of their attention (which he characterized as "inattentional blindness"). He stated that a self-deploying guard can protect against what he characterized as the inevitability of human error. Crawford presented evidence that dovetailed with Edwards's analysis: the amputation occurred on a Sunday, the busiest day in the store's meat department, and Crawford was manager of that department and thus had other duties to which to attend. The meat department was noisy and employees came in and out of the area. Crawford testified that he was unable to see that the blade was active and unguarded and did not notice the vibration. And testimony was presented that the blade and its guard were similar colors.

FEG moved to exclude Professor Barnett's alternative design on the grounds that it did not meet the Daubert standard for expert testimony, and moved for summary judgment. FEG's summary judgment motion noted that Professor Barnett, in his report and deposition, could not identify any self-deploying guard available when the Hobart 6614 was manufactured in 2010;¹ in response, Crawford submitted an affidavit from Professor Barnett stating that since his report and deposition, he had identified three meat saws using a self-deploying blade guard that had been patented in 1976,² as well as an additional patent that had not been used on any manufactured designs.

Crawford also introduced summaries of incidents reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in which saw operators had been injured by meat saws with adjustable blade guards while not cutting meat. Some of these incidents involved the Hobart 6614's predecessor saw, the model 6801, which had the same adjustable guard as the model 6614. Professor Barnett noted that OSHA recommended self-adjusting guards to the industry in 2007. D.E. 71 at 84.

FEG's requested jury instructions had included Florida's "state-of-the-art defense," which provides that "the finder of fact shall consider the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of manufacture, not at the time of loss or injury." Fla. Stat. § 768.1257. The district court concluded that this defense only applied to strict liability and not negligence actions and, because Crawford had voluntarily dismissed his strict liability claim, declined to give the instruction.

The jury found that Crawford and FEG's negligent design were both responsible for Crawford's injury. It found Crawford 70% at fault and FEG 30% at fault. The jury found Crawford's total damages were $13,500,000, of which just over $4 million was allocated to FEG under the jury's comparative fault finding.

At the close of Crawford's case and again after trial, FEG moved for judgment as a matter of law. FEG argued that Crawford failed to prove that its meat saw was defective and that Crawford's expert testimony was inadmissible. The district court denied these motions, concluding that Crawford had presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and that Crawford's experts satisfied the Daubert standard.

FEG also moved for a new trial. FEG argued that the district court should have issued the state-of-the-art defense instruction, and that this instruction would have altered the jury's verdict. FEG also argued that the district court should have excluded the OSHA reports and Crawford's expert testimony.

The district court denied the motion for a new trial. It concluded that its failure to give the state-of-the-art instruction did not result in prejudicial harm to FEG. It also concluded that its admission of the OSHA reports complied with the public records hearsay exception and that the reports were relevant to Crawford's case.

FEG timely appealed.

II. PROFESSOR BARNETT'S EXPERT TESTIMONY

A. Barnett's Report

FEG first argues that the district court should not have admitted Professor Barnett's testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 establishes the district court as the gatekeeper to the admission of scientific or technical expert testimony. The court must determine that the expert is qualified regarding the matter at hand, employs a reliable methodology, and will provide testimony that assists the trier of fact to understand the issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for analyzing whether an expert's methodology is reliable. Reliability is determined by considering: "(1) whether the expert's testimony can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community." Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1175, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) ). Both Daubert and Kumho emphasize that the test is "a flexible one" that must be "tied to the facts." 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; 526 U.S. at 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167 ; see also id. at 141-42, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1175 ("But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is ‘flexible,’ and Daubert’s list of factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. Rather, the law grants the district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect of its ultimate reliability determination.").

The district court's decision to admit Barnett's testimony is reviewed pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard. McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2005). This court can only reverse the district court if it applied an incorrect legal standard, followed improper procedures, or made clearly erroneous findings of fact. Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001) ; see also McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that "our review of evidentiary rulings by trial courts on the admission of expert testimony is very limited" (internal quotations omitted)); Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Corp. v. Benfield, 140 F.3d 915, 921 (11th Cir. 1998) ("It is very much a matter of discretion with the trial court whether to permit the introduction of evidence, and we will not reverse the...