Fischer v. BMW of N. Am., Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-1399 |
| Parties | RONNIE FISCHER, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware company, Defendant - Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00120-PAB-MEH(D. Colorado
Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Ronnie Fischer[1] was injured while changing the front tire of a vehicle manufactured by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW AG"), a parent corporation of defendant-appellee BMW of North America, L.L.C. ("BMW"). Mr. Fischer sued BMW, alleging products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims. Mr. Fischer designated Dr. Aaron Lalley, a licensed professional mechanical engineer, as his liability expert. BMW moved to exclude several of Dr. Lalley's opinions. After granting the motion to exclude, the district court granted BMW's motion for summary judgment on all of Mr Fischer's claims. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291, we affirm.
In January 2016, Mr. Fischer attempted to change a flat tire on a 2003 BMW sedan in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Fischer had reviewed the portions of the vehicle's owner's manual that provided instructions for changing the vehicle's tires. Based on the manual, he understood he was to place the vehicle in park and apply the parking brake. Then, he was to place the jack that came with the vehicle into the integrated jacking point. Mr. Fischer believes he followed these instructions as he used the jack to raise the front-right portion of the vehicle. Mr. Fischer then removed the flat tire and placed the spare tire on the wheel hub. While he was tightening the lug bolt on the spare tire, the vehicle fell off the jack. The vehicle suddenly dropped down and pinned his middle finger between the asphalt and the lug wrench, crushing and severing a portion of his finger.
Mr. Fischer sued BMW, alleging products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims. After Mr. Fischer designated Dr. Lalley as his liability expert, BMW moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude several of Dr. Lalley's opinions. Three of these disputed opinions are at issue in this appeal. First, Dr. Lalley stated the BMW jack had a design defect that rendered it unstable compared to other jacks (the 2 "Instability Opinion"). Second, Dr. Lalley believed the design defect caused the jack to fail and the vehicle to fall, injuring Mr. Fischer (the "Causation Opinion"). Third, Dr. Lalley surmised BMW's jack designers compromised safety in the interest of cost reduction or space requirements (the "Intent Opinion").
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted BMW's motion to exclude these opinions. BMW then moved for summary judgment, arguing Mr. Fischer could not succeed on any of his claims given the inadmissibility of Dr. Lalley's expert testimony. In resolving BMW's motion, the district court explained that "[e]ach of [Mr. Fischer's] claims-strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranties-requires [him] to prove a design defect." App. Vol. 4 at 68. "Because [Mr. Fischer's] sole liability expert's opinions concerning a design defect have been excluded," and because Mr. Fischer "fail[ed] to identify any other evidence which might support a finding of a design defect," the district court held Mr. Fischer lacked evidence on an essential element of his claims and could not survive BMW's summary judgment motion. Id. at 69. The district court then granted BMW's motion. Mr. Fischer appealed.
On appeal, Mr. Fischer argues the district court (1) failed to perform its gatekeeping function, as required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; (2) abused its discretion in excluding three of Dr. Lalley's disputed opinions; and (3) erred in granting BMW summary judgment because the district court's summary judgment decision was premised on its improper exclusion of Dr. Lalley's opinions. We turn to these issues now.
An expert witness must be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Fed.R.Evid. 702(a). Further, the expert's testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact, "based on sufficient facts," and the result of "reliable principles and methods." Id. 702(b). Accordingly, district courts have a "gatekeeper obligation" to ensure all expert testimony admitted is both relevant and reliable. Schulenberg v. BNSF Ry. Co., 911 F.3d 1276, 1282 (10th Cir. 2018); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993).
We review de novo "whether the district court actually performed its gatekeeper role in the first instance." Schulenberg, 911 F.3d at 1282 (quotation marks omitted). To do so, we look to "whether the district court carefully and meticulously review[ed] the proffered scientific evidence or simply made an off-the-cuff decision to admit the expert testimony." Goebel v. Denver &Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 215 F.3d 1083, 1088 (10th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, to perform its gatekeeping role, the district court must make specific findings on the record so that this court can determine if it carefully reviewed the objected-to expert testimony under the correct standards. Adamscheck v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 818 F.3d 576, 586 (10th Cir. 2016).
The district court satisfied its obligations here. In its seventeen-page decision, the district court: thoroughly evaluated Dr. Lalley's report; set forth the relevant standards under Rule 702 and Daubert that governed its analysis; applied these standards to evaluate Dr. Lalley's methodology and qualifications with respect to the opinions BMW sought to exclude; and provided clear and abundant support for its decision to exclude these opinions.
Mr. Fischer disagrees, arguing the district court did not perform its gatekeeping function because it failed to "fully consider the record." Aplt. Br. at 9. He takes specific issue with the court excluding the Instability Opinion after finding it was not based on sufficient facts. We first describe the methodology underlying Dr. Lalley's Instability Opinion before affirming the district court's decision to exclude it.
In his expert report, Dr. Lalley opined that the "primary flaw" in BMW's jack design is that "[t]he force and displacement required" for the jack to tip over "is approximately half of typical designs." App. Vol. 1 at 30. The report includes a chart showing a "[c]omparison of calculated tipping force" between the BMW jack and the jacks associated with Pontiac and Ford vehicles. Id. at 34. According to this chart, the lateral force required to tip over the BMW jack is 121.1 pounds, whereas the force required to tip over the Pontiac and Ford jacks is 292.3 pounds and 209.6 pounds, respectively.
Dr. Lalley derives these figures from a formula he claims measures the force required to tip a jack. He states: Id. at 32. He also states Id. Dr. Lalley estimated the weight on the respective jack to be 1, 000 pounds. The district court excluded the Instability Opinion after noting that Dr. Lalley "does not explain . . . figures [used in his formula] - e.g., the '[e]stimated weight on jack' of 1, 000 pounds." App. Vol. 4 at 51 (alteration in original) (quoting App. Vol. 1 at 34).
Mr. Fischer claims the factual basis for Dr. Lalley's use of 1, 000 pounds was contained elsewhere in the record and was understood by the parties "to be representative of one-fourth of the weight of the car."[2] Aplt. Br. at 10. But even if true, a district court satisfies its gatekeeping function when it "carefully and meticulously review[s] the proffered scientific evidence [rather than] simply ma[king] an off-the-cuff decision to admit the expert testimony." Goebel, 215 F.3d at 1088 (emphasis added). That is, a district court must carefully examine the expert opinion being proffered to determine whether it is admissible under Rule 702. A district court is not obligated to scour the entire record to try to make sense of the expert opinion.
Here, the district court correctly observed that Dr. Lalley's report used a formula involving 1, 000 pounds as the estimated weight on the jack, and that the report failed to explain from where Dr. Lalley drew that number. See App. Vol. 1 at 34 (); see generally id. at 30-41 (entire expert report, in which 1, 000-pound figure is never explained). Nowhere does Dr. Lalley's expert report mention that he uses 4, 000 pounds as the estimated weight of the entire vehicle, and his rebuttal report also fails to provide clarity on this point. Nor does the parties' apparent understanding of this figure salvage Mr. Fischer's argument. The district court's gatekeeping function requires it to assure itself that Dr. Lalley's report was admissible under Rule 702, and the court was unable to do so based on the reports before it. We are therefore satisfied the district court fulfilled its gatekeeping responsibility.
If "the district court fulfilled its gatekeeping responsibility, [w]e then review the trial court's actual application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial