Wilda v. JLG Indus., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-10088 |
| Parties | PATRICK R. WILDA, individually, and as independent administrator of the ESTATE OF PATRICK C. WILDA, deceased, Plaintiff, v. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ILLINI HI-REACH, INC., Third-Party Defendant. ILLINI HI-REACH, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. AREA ERECTORS, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Hon. Steven C. Seeger
This case is about a fatal injury suffered while a construction worker was using a manlift. The administrator of the decedent's estate sued the manufacturer of the manlift, Defendant JLG Industries, Inc., advancing an assortment of strict liability and negligence claims. JLG later moved to exclude Plaintiff's two experts who opined about the alleged design defects of the manlift. JLG moved for summary judgment, too, arguing that it has no liability as a matter of law.
JLG makes three arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. First, JLG argues that there is no evidence of a design defect if this Court grants its Daubert motions and excludes the testimony of Plaintiff's two experts. Second, JLG contends that the machinery was not defective because the distributor of the equipment, Third-Party Defendant Illini Hi-Reach, Inc., elected not to use an optional safety device. Third, JLG argues that the decedent proximately caused the accident by misusing the equipment.
For the reasons stated below, the Daubert motions are denied,1 and so is the motion for summary judgment.
This Court previously ruled on a collection of summary judgment motions. See 7/2/20 Opin. (Dckt. No. 366). The Court will assume familiarity with that opinion, including the background facts. Suffice it to say that the case is about a fatal accident involving Patrick C. Wilda, a construction worker. His father (Patrick R. Wilda) later filed suit as the administrator of the estate.
The accident happened while Wilda was on board a manlift manufactured by JLG. A manlift is a "self-propelled hydraulic personnel lift equipped with a work platform on the end of an elevating and rotating boom." See JLG Operation and Safety Manual, at § 4.1 (Dckt. No. 288-7). Think of it as a scaffold at the end of an articulating boom, on wheels.
The operator directs the machine from inside the bucket (or basket). The manual describes how it works: Id.
In other words, an operator uses the machine by climbing inside something that looks like a large basket at the end of a boom. From inside the work platform, a worker can raise, lower, swing, and extend the boom, giving the person the freedom to go in all sorts of directions. At first blush, a reader might not be able to picture what a manlift looks like (to see a picture, see Dckt. No. 288-8). But they are ubiquitous at construction sites.
JLG delivered the manlift to Illini Hi-Reach, one of its distributors. Illini Hi-Reach rents and sells aerial lift equipment. Illini Hi-Reach, in turn, rented the manlift to Area Erectors, a construction company, to use at its jobsite. Wilda was an ironworker for Area Erectors.
On January 30, 2015, Wilda climbed aboard a JLG manlift to build part of a warehouse. He elevated the platform to the roof, where he intended to bolt together cross bracings for steel joists. He was alone. No one was in sight.
Somehow, Wilda collided with a beam, which struck him from behind. Apparently, the manlift continued to push him toward the beam. He became pinned between a roof joist and the manlift's control panel - the manlift pushed him toward the beam, but the beam did not budge, forcing his body back toward the machine. He died by asphyxiation. No one witnessed the accident.
The estate filed suit against JLG (the manufacturer). JLG later sued Illini Hi-Reach (the distributor). And Illini Hi-Reach, in turn, sued Area Erectors (the employer). The current motions involve the claims brought by Plaintiff against JLG.
JLG moved to exclude Plaintiff's two experts under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Each of the experts disclosed opinions about the alleged design defects of the manlift. JLG, in turn, relies on the Daubert motions to support its motion for summary judgment. Specifically, JLG argues that Wilda cannot prove that the design was defective without expert testimony. And if the expert testimony is inadmissible, then Wilda cannot carry his burden of proof. So the Court will take up the Daubert motions first.
The Supreme Court poured the foundation for the framework for evaluating expert testimony in Daubert. See Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Pansier, 576 F.3d 726, 737 (7th Cir. 2009); Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., 444 F.3d 593, 607 (7th Cir. 2006) (). "The district court is a 'gate-keeper' who determines whether proffered expert testimony is reliable and relevant before accepting a witness as an expert." Autotech Tech. Ltd. P'ship v. Automationdirect.com, 471 F.3d 745, 749 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-49 (1999); Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, "[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help thetrier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Ortiz v. City of Chicago, 656 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2011). "The non-exclusive list of Daubert reliability factors for scientific evidence includes whether or not the theory or technique has been (1) tested, (2) subjected to peer review and publication, (3) analyzed for known or potential error rate, and/or is (4) generally accepted within the specific scientific field." Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802, 810 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94).
"The goal of Daubert is to assure that experts employ the same 'intellectual rigor' in their courtroom testimony as would be employed by an expert in the relevant field." Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482, 489 (7th Cir. 2007). "The proponent of the expert bears the burden of demonstrating that the expert's testimony would satisfy the Daubert standard." Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 2009).
Myers v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 629 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2007)). District judges possess considerable discretion in dealing with expert testimony. See Carroll v. Otis Elevator Co., 896 F.2d 210, 212 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-43 (1997) ().
JLG challenges the admissibility of the testimony of Wilda's two experts: Steven Wiker and Anthony Bond. The thrust of the argument is that neither expert can testify, consistent with the standards laid down in Daubert, that a design defect caused the accident. See JLG Mem. in Support of Mtn. re Wiker, at 1 (Dckt. No. 286) ("Plaintiff has failed to proffer a liability expert who can establish that the accident on January 30, 2015 was caused by a defect in the JLG 460SJ Boom Lift . . . ."); JLG Mem. in Support of Mtn. re Bond, at 1 (Dckt. No. 284) (same).
JLG does not challenge the qualifications of either expert.2 JLG also does not deny that the testimony would assist the trier of fact and address a fact at issue. Instead, JLG argues that their opinions are not reliable. The Court will address each expert separately.
JLG challenges the admissibility of Wiker's testimony because, in its view, the opinions are "pure speculation," "baseless," "incorrect," "nonsensical," and "inaccurate." See JLG Mem. in Support of Mtn. re Wiker, at 7, 8, 9, 11 (Dckt. No. 286). In reality, the Daubert motion is simply a smattering of arguments that are best left for a jury.
As the gatekeeper, a district court must ensure that a proposed expert follows a "scientifically valid" methodology. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93. The conclusions must rest on "sufficient facts or data," too. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). So, a failure to look at this or that is not a reason to keep an expert out of a case, unless the materials that an expert reviewed are "[in]sufficient" without it. Id.; see also In re Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector ComponentsProd. Liab. Litig., 2017 WL 1196990, at *22 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial