Miller v. CNH Indus. Am.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 6:20-cv-01293-TC |
| Parties | BRIAN MILLER, Plaintiff v. CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Brian Miller filed this products liability suit for injuries he sustained while operating a tractor manufactured by Defendant CNH Industrial America LLC. Doc. 4. CNH moved for summary judgment on all of Miller's claims, Doc. 95, and to exclude Miller's expert's testimony, Doc. 97. For the reasons below, those motions are denied.
1. Summary judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” when it is essential to the claim's resolution. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). And disputes over those material facts are “genuine” if the competing evidence would permit a reasonable jury to decide the issue in either party's favor. Id. Disputes-even hotly contested ones-over facts that are not essential to the claims are irrelevant. Indeed, belaboring such disputes undermines the efficiency Rule 56 seeks to promote.
At the summary judgment stage, material facts “must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.” Adler, 144 F.3d at 671; see also D. Kan. R. 56.1(d). To determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists, a court views all evidence, and draws all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Carter v. Pathfinder Energy Servs., Inc., 662 F.3d 1134, 1138 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1997). That said, the nonmoving party cannot create a genuine factual dispute by making allegations that are purely conclusory, Adler, 144 F.3d at 671-72 674, or unsupported by the record as a whole, see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, Inc., 45 F.4th 1193, 1197 (10th Cir. 2022). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that genuine issues remain for trial as to those dispositive matters. Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133, 113738 (10th Cir. 2016); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).
2. The admissibility of expert testimony is guided by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.[1] Roe v. FCA U.S. LLC, 42 F.4th 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). To fulfill its gatekeeping role, a trial court must ensure that the expert is qualified and that his or her testimony is both reliable and relevant. Id. “Rule 702 requires an expert witness to be qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.'” Tudor v. Se. Okla. State Univ., 13 F.4th 1019, 1029 (10th Cir. 2021). Testimony is reliable “if it is based on sufficient data, sound methods, and the facts of the case.” See Roe, 42 F.4th at 1180-81 (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). It is relevant if it helps the trier of fact “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed.R.Evid. 702(a); Delsa Brooke Sanderson v. Wyo. Highway Patrol, 976 F.3d 1164, 1172 (10th Cir. 2020).
Miller and his father operate a dairy farm, Miller Dairy, in Kansas. Doc. 94 at ¶ 2.a.6. Miller has operated tractors and other farm equipment for many years. Doc. 102 at 10. In 2015, Miller Dairy purchased a used New Holland T7.270 Autocommand tractor, manufactured by CNH four years earlier, from a Kansas tractor dealer. Doc. 94 at ¶¶ 2.a.7-8. Miller was the tractor's primary operator. Doc. 102 at 11.
In October 2018, Miller was using the tractor to pull a seed drill while planting wheat. Doc. 94 at ¶ 2.a.12. The seed drill was 30 feet wide. Doc. 102 at 15. Miller was operating the tractor at approximately five miles per hour. Id. at 16. While the tractor was still moving, Miller got up from the driver's seat and stepped off the tractor to inspect what he believed to be a piece of metal on the ground. Doc. 94 at 4.
Miller claims that as he was exiting the tractor he thought he pulled the hydrostat to zero, meaning that the transmission was still en-gaged-i.e., not in neutral-but its forward motion should be coming to a stop.[2] Doc. 94 at 4. Miller knew that the tractor was still moving when he stepped onto the ground. Doc. 102-1 at 47. After Miller stepped onto the ground, the seed drill hit him in the back, knocked him to the ground, dragged him for more than 100 yards, and then ran him over. Doc. 94 at 4-5. Miller was found in the field several hours later and required extensive medical care. Id. at 5. When the tractor was found about a quarter mile away, its tires were still moving. Id. It only stopped because it had run into a tree. Id.
With its purchase of the tractor, Miller Dairy received an operator's manual and in-person instruction from the local dealer's representative. Doc. 94 at ¶¶ 2.a.10-11. As relevant here, the manual describes the shuttle lever and the tractor's park brake. The shuttle lever switches the tractor's transmission between forward, neutral, and reverse. Doc. 96-2 at 22. The hand brake engages the park brake by pulling up on a lever near the driver's seat. Doc. 102-8 at 2. The electronic park brake engages the brake either automatically or by using the shuttle lever. Id.
Regarding the electronic park brake at issue, the manual states the following: Doc. 96-2 at 19. Further, “If the operator leaves the seat for more than 5 seconds with the engine running and without engaging the electronic park brake (EPB), the transmission will not drive until the operator is reseated and the clutch pedal has been cycled (de-press/release).” Id. at 23.
The tractor's cab also conveys information to the operator. The dashboard includes an instrument cluster containing a dot matrix display. Doc. 102 at 21-23. This display instructs the operator with warnings and advisory symbols. Doc. 96-2 at 17. The manual's diagram of the instrument cluster states that “[i]f . . . the operator leaves the seat without applying the parking brake, a warning buzzer will sound and the parking brake lamp will flash for approximately 10 seconds or until the parking brake has been applied.” Id. at 15. These signals occur if neither brake is engaged, no matter if the tractor is stationary or moving. See Doc. 102-15 at 2.
Many different sources warn the user to bring the tractor to a stop before dismounting. The manual instructs users never to dismount a moving tractor and to ensure that the brake is engaged. Doc. 102 at 20; Doc. 96-2 at 10, 20, 23. And the inside of the tractor contains similar warnings, such as, “Always engage parking brake before dismounting.” Doc. 102 at 8.
Miller filed suit and proposes three theories for recovery: negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. Doc. 94 at 11. In his negligence claim, Miller alleges that CNH breached its duty to give adequate warnings and instructions on how to use its product safely. Id. Specifically, he claims CNH failed to provide proper instruction in its manual regarding the electronic parking brake and failed to configure its warnings in a way that would not be misinterpreted. Id. In his strict liability and breach of implied warranty claims, Miller argues that these inadequate warnings and instructions made the tractor unreasonably dangerous and breached CNH's implied warranty. Id.
The parties' dispute centers on why an experienced tractor operator would leave the cab of a moving tractor despite knowing that this was dangerous. CNH alleges that Miller knew the danger of exiting a moving tractor and did so anyway, despite his training, common sense, and the tractor's warnings and instructions. Doc. 96 at 1-2. Miller admits that “best practices would say” not to exit a moving tractor, Doc. 96-5 at 11-13, and that had he followed his own general practice of engaging the brake with the shuttle lever, this accident would not have happened, Doc. 102-1 at 49-50. But he claims CNH's warnings and instructions regarding the electronic park brake were inadequate because they led him to believe the tractor would stop as he dismounted. Doc. 102 at 2.
CNH moves for summary judgment on all of Miller's claims. Doc. 95.[3] CNH argues three points. First, it had no duty to warn Miller of the dangers of dismounting a moving tractor. Doc. 96 at 23. Second, its warnings were adequate. Doc. 96 at 28-31. Third, the adequacy of its warnings is a moot point because those warnings did not cause Miller's injury. See Doc. 96 at 36, 39.
To prove that CNH's warnings and instructions were inadequate, Miller plans to present expert testimony from Michael Wogalter. His testimony can be summarized as three opinions.
Wogalter's first opinion is that the manual does not clearly state what happens when the operator leaves the seat while the tractor is moving. Doc. 101 at 3-4. According to Wogalter, the manual should specify that the brake will not engage and the transmission will continue to drive if the tractor is moving at all. Id. at 3.
Wogalter's second opinion is that the visual and auditory warnings are unclear. Doc. 101 at 4. That opinion has...
To continue reading
Request your trial