Loos v. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV-15-411-R |
| Parties | DAVID LOOS, Plaintiff, v. SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., d/b/a NORTON SAINT-GOBAIN (a/k/a NORTON ABRASIVES); and NORTON SAINT GOBAIN a/k/a NORTON ABRASIVES, Defendants; and SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., d/b/a NORTON SAINT-GOBAIN (a/k/a NORTON ABRASIVES); and NORTON SAINT GOBAIN a/k/a NORTON ABRASIVES, Third Party Plaintiff, v. THE ESTATE OF CARL LOOS, INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a CARL LOOS RENTALS; JACQUELINE LOOS, INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a CARL LOOS RENTALS and d/b/a MID AMERICA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, ALL AS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO CARL LOOS RENTALS and MID AMERICA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES Third Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Three motions are before the Court. Defendant Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. ("Saint-Gobain") has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 89). Saint-Gobain has also filed a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert William Munsell, Jr., P.E. (Doc. No. 88). Third Party Defendants The Estate of Carl Loos, Individually and d/b/a Carl Loos Rentals; Jacqueline Loos, Individually, and d/b/a Carl Loos Rentals and d/b/a Mid America Investment Properties, all as successors in interest to Carl Loos Rentals and Mid America Investment Properties ("Carl Loos Rentals") have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as well (Doc. No. 85). The Court finds that resolution will be most expeditious with entry of a single order.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court GRANTS Carl Loos Rentals's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Saint-Gobain's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, and in turn, DENIES Saint-Gobain's Motion for Summary Judgment.
This case arises out of a products liability dispute. Plaintiff David Loos was attempting to convert a Chevrolet Suburban from diesel to gasoline in December 2011 in Edmond, Oklahoma, when he cut into the truck's aluminum fuel line using an air-powered cut-off tool. That tool was owned by Third Party Defendant Carl Loos Rentals, a residential real estate business and sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Loos's father, Carl Loos, before his death. The tool was equipped with a metal cut-off wheel—the instrument at the center of this case—which was manufactured by Defendant Saint-Gobain. Cut-off wheels are thin, disc-shaped devices composed of abrasive materials and are commonly used to cut and grind a range of materials. When Mr. Loos cut into the aluminum fuel line, the cut-off wheel shattered, shooting a metal shard up the right side of his face and into his right eye. He seeks damages for his injuries, including blindness and scarring, and asserts two claims. First, Mr. Loos seeks to hold Saint-Gobain liable under a theory of strict products liability, arguing his injury was the result of a defectively manufactured wheel. Second, he contends that Saint-Gobain was negligent in designing and manufacturing the wheel.
Saint-Gobain, in turn, denies all liability and has brought claims for indemnification and contribution against Carl Loos Rentals, Mr. Loos's father's business, which owned and supplied the tool to Mr. Loos. Saint-Gobain alleges that Carl Loos Rentals negligently configured the tool after it was purchased and failed to properly instruct Mr. Loos on how to use the cut-off wheel, directly resulting in Mr. Loos's injuries. Mr. Loos, however, asserts no claims against Carl Loos Rentals or any party other than Saint-Gobain.
Saint-Gobain has also moved to exclude the testimony of Mr. Loos's expert witness and for summary judgment as to both of Mr. Loos's claims. As Saint-Gobain's Motion for Summary Judgment hinges on the admissibility of Mr. Loos's expert's testimony, the Court first turns to that issue.
Saint-Gobain moves to exclude the opinions and testimony of Mr. Loos's expert, William P. Munsell, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Specifically, Saint-Gobain objects to Mr. Munsell testifying that (1) the cut-off wheel contained a manufacturing defect; (2) neither improper assembly of the cut-off wheel to the grinding tool nor use of the wheel at excess speeds caused the accident; and (3) the use of a guard or other safety procedures would not have prevented Mr. Loos's injuries.
This basic "gatekeeping role" of the Court involves two parts. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The Court first determines whether the expert is qualified "by knowledge, skill,experience, training, or education" to render an opinion. United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702). Then, if the expert is qualified, the Court decides whether the testimony is reliable by assessing its underlying reasoning and methodology. Id. The offered testimony "must be based on scientific knowledge, which 'implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science' based on actual knowledge, not 'subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'" Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590). Further, "[n]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by ipse dixit of the expert." Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 147, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). Granted, a plaintiff "need not prove that the expert is undisputably correct or that the expert's theory is generally accepted in the scientific community." Truck Ins. Exch. v. Magnetek, Inc., 360 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted). But he still "must show that the method employed by the expert in reaching the conclusion is scientifically sound and that the opinion is based on facts which sufficiently satisfy Rule 702's reliability requirement." Truck Ins. Exch. v. Magnetek, Inc., 360 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Above all, "the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system." Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee's note (quoting United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Leflore Cty., State of Miss., 80 F.3d 1074, 1078 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Saint-Gobain does not contest the experience and qualifications of Mr. Munsell.1 Their bone of contention instead lies with the methodology and reliability of his tests. Mr. Munsell's Rule 26 Expert Report describes the twenty-five experiments he performed to test whether the wheel shattered due to the speed setting of the hand tool, the angle at which the wheel was mounted, a defect in the wheel, or a combination of these factors. He also found that the exposed cross-section of one of the wheel fragments was coated with a "mass of material that is inconsistent with the abrasive particle/bond material matrix that otherwise characterizes" the wheel's makeup. This observation of the "amber-colored resin and short, irregular fibers" on the fractured wheel's edge—combined with the deposition testimony of Saint-Gobain's expert that a cut-off wheel would typically not include such material—led Mr. Mundell to conclude that the foreign material in the wheel likely acted as a pre-existing crack that reduced the wheel's strength. Mr. Munsell thus found that "the manufacturing defect in the cut-off wheel was more probably than not a causative factor in the failure of the wheel and the subsequent injury to Mr. Loos." Munsell Report at 7.
Nonetheless, Saint-Gobain argues that Mr. Munsell's testimony should be excluded because Mr. Munsell's tests were not representative of the accident. Specifically, they argue that the testimony is inadmissible because Mr. Munsell (1) tested the speed of both the grinding tool used by Mr. Loos and an exemplar tool without a mounted cut-off wheel; (2) failed to test the hand tool's speed for a "substantial period;" (3) neglected to cut any metal fuel lines or other objects, (4) failed to test the combined effects of excess speeds, improper mount, and a worn wheel together; and finally, (5) did not determine what the alleged foreign substance found on the fractured cut-off wheel was, whether it could cause shattering, or whether a defect existed in other wheels.
The Court nonetheless finds that Mr. Munsell's testimony is admissible under Daubert because his conclusions are based on "valid reasoning and reliable methodology." Dodge, 328 F.3d at 1226. Mr. Munsell's report describes in detail the twenty-five tests he performed along with his measurements, calculations, and the basis of his conclusion and opinions. His tests were intended to isolate and gauge the effects of the very factors Saint-Gobain argues caused the wheel to shatter. His tests repeatedly produced consistent results. And his tests will help the jury to understand whether any part of the wheel failure was due to the air-powered tool's speed setting, the angle at which the cut-off wheel was mounted, or the presence of a foreign material in the wheel. To the extent Saint-Gobain contests whether the tests actually recreated the conditions of the accident, those are concerns better brought out...
To continue reading
Request your trial