Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | Cause No.: 2:10-CV-00467-JTM-APR |
| Parties | KURT STUHLMACHER and KELLY STUHLMACHER, Plaintiffs, v. THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the court on the Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Thomas Conry [DE 41] and the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 43] filed by the defendants, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Tricam Industries, Inc., on December 21, 2012. For the following reasons, the Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Thomas Conry [DE 41] is DENIED, and the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 43] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The plaintiff, Kurt Stuhlacher's, father purchased a Model 01-41000-00-foot fiberglass Type IA stepladder from the defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., on October 31, 2008. The ladder was manufactured by the defendant, Tricam Industries, Inc., in July 2007. Several ladders from the subject ladder's production batch were tested and found to conform with the authoritative safety guidelines, the ANSI A14.5 and OSHA. The subject ladder also was labeled as conforming to the ANSI requirements.
On either October 31, 2008 or November 1, 2008, Kurt was using the ladder to construct the roof of a cabin porch. Kurt testified that he set up the ladder on flat level clay "so hard that if you struck it with a hammer, it would spark." Before climbing up the ladder, Kurt opened it and depressed the spreaders. He then stood in front of the ladder, grabbed a hold of the rails, shook it around, and lifted it up to make sure everything was level and square. He next leaned the ladder back and jiggled it around. Kurt stated that everything was perpendicular and that nothing was out of line before he climbed the ladder. Kurt went to the seventh step of the ladder, stopped, and began drilling a screw through a "purlin" into the rafter to his right. The ladder did not wiggle or wobble when he climbed the ladder, and none of the ladder's four feet sunk into the hard clay when he climbed up. While drilling, the ladder fell to Kurt's left. Kurt grasped the rafter to his left and tried to hold on to it. He twisted so that the front of the cabin was to his right. He could not hold on and fell straight down on the ladder. Kurt struck his groin on the right front rail near the first step. He suffered bruises on the left side of his stomach, left arm, left leg, left shoulder, and left side of his face. On November 2, 2008, Kurt sought medical treatment for his injuries.
After the fall, Kurt inspected the area where he set up the ladder and did not see any indentations in the ground. Kurt's wife, Kelly Stuhlmacher, was standing below Kurt within a foot or two of the ladder when the fall occurred. Kelly did not know what step Kurt was on before the fall. She agreed that the ladder fell to Kurt's left and that Kurt fell on the ladder. When Kurt began to fall she did not hear anything nor did she see the left spreader bar separate from the rail.
Post fall, the right rear spreader bracket rivets were pulled through the interior of the webof the right rear leg. The right spreader was buckled inward, and the right front spreader bracket was bent inward. The ladder's rear section was "racked/twisted/offset" to the right, and the diagonal step braces were bent from the front to rear on the ladder's front left side.
Kurt and Kelly filed their complaint against the defendants on October 22, 2010. The plaintiffs raise several counts, including: (1) Negligence-Strict Liability, (2) Negligence- Failure to Warn, (3) Negligence, (4) Breach of Warranty of Merchantability, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, and (6) Loss of Consortium.
The plaintiffs hired Dr. Thomas Conry as an expert witness. Conry holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and a Master of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His study has focused on mechanical design and contact mechanics, which is the scientific study of forces, motions, displacements, and stresses placed on components. Conry is a licensed professional engineer in Illinois, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Texas. He was a professor of engineering from 1971 until 2006, and he taught mechanical and structural analysis, engineering design analysis, mechanical and structural component design, materials testing laboratory, and senior project design.
Conry studied the ladder, the industry standard for ladder safety, ANSI A14.5, and the product design, among other things prior to preparing his expert report. Conry observed that the rivets were not the same size as the ones called for in the product design and did not have a lip on the underside. Conry also observed that the right rear rivet heads were indented in the right rail. He concluded that this must have occurred during the manufacture because the marks on the inside of the rail could not have been made by Kurt's impact with the ladder. If the indentation marks had been made from the bracket separating with the fiberglass rail, the onlyindentation mark would correspond to the straight edge of the steel bracket, not the 10 mm radius arcs. This is because the edge of the bracket would have acted as a fulcrum, and the rest of the bracket would have been separated from the rail.
At his deposition, Conry conceded that he was not an expert in ladder manufacturing. As part of his analysis, he did not calculate the force required to bend the right front spreader bracket. He also admitted that the right spreader's buckle was consistent with impact. Conry estimated that the maximum force that could have caused the damage to the right spreader bar was 91 pounds. However, he did not state that this was in fact the amount of force applied from Kurt's ascent up the ladder. Conry also testified that it was possible that pressure was exerted on the ladder by Kurt digging the legs of the ladder into the ground. Conry further admitted that he did not determine the depth to which the rivets were indented into the exterior rail where the rivets were set and did not determine the degree to which he claims the right rear rail was weakened due to rivet indentation.
The defendants now move to exclude Conry's testimony and further argue that absent Conry's testimony the plaintiffs cannot prove that the ladder was defective and unreasonably dangerous or that a defect with the ladder was the proximate cause of Kurt's injury.
The admissibility of expert evidence is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny. Winters v. FruCon Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2007). Rule 702 provides:
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 anexpert 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.
Under Daubert, the court exercises a "gatekeeping" function to ensure that expert testimony is both reliable and relevant pursuant to Rule 702. Lees v. Carthage College, 714 F.3d 516, 521 (7th Cir. 2013); Winters, 498 F.3d at 741; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.W. 137, 141, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). The examination applies "to all kinds of expert testimony." U.S. v. Conn, 297 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 2002)( that Rule 702 makes no distinction between "scientific" knowledge and other forms of specialized knowledge)(citing Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149). The main purpose of the court's gatekeeping requirement "is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152.
In light of Daubert and Kumho Tire, the Seventh Circuit has endorsed a two-step analysis for district courts to use in evaluating expert testimony under Rule 702: first, the court must determine whether the expert's testimony is "reliable;" and second, the court must determine whether the expert's testimony is "relevant." Lees, 714 F.3d at 521; Hardiman v. Davita Inc., 2007 WL 1395568 (N.D. Ind. May 10, 2007). Like all questions of admissibility, these regarding a witness's testimony are matters of law to be determined by the judge. Hardiman, 2007 WL 1395568 at *2 (quoting and citing Porter v. Whitehall Labs., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 1335, 1342 (S.D. Ind. 1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 1993). "The burden of showing an expert's testimony to be relevant and reliable is with the proponent of the evidence." Bickel v.Pfizer, Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921 (N.D. Ind. 2006).
To satisfy the reliability requirement, the expert must be qualified in the relevant field, and his opinion must be based on sound methodology. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Hardiman, 2007 WL 1395568 at n.1 (). In determining whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion, the court should consider his "full range of practical experience as well as academic or technical training . . . ." U.S. v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2005)(quoting Smith, 215 F.3d at 718). Still, Smith, 215 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial