ILNews

$2.9M verdict in mill accident case upheld

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the admittance of an expert’s opinion as to causation of an accident at a northern Indiana steel rolling mill, finding the federal court properly denied a company’s Daubert motion to bar that testimony.

Leonard Lapsley was severely injured in an accident at the mill when industrial grease was propelled from the roll end with enough energy to pass through his body like a bullet. He is disabled as a result of the accident.

At trial, Dr. Gary Hutter testified as a plaintiff expert witness that an internal spring in the industrial product designed and made by Xtek was the culprit mechanism behind the accident and an alternative design of a thrust plate in the equipment would have prevented the accident being as severe. Xtex filed a Daubert motion for the trial court to scrutinize Hutter’s testimony to determine whether it’s reliable enough to present to the jury. Xtek argued that Hutter’s proposed testimony lacked scientific basis.

The District Court disagreed, pointing to the “commonly known methodologies and physics calculations” that Hutter used in reaching his conclusions. The court also found that the conclusions were relevant, ruling that Xtek’s disagreement with Hutter’s theory on causation could not be the sole reason for excluding it.

The court found Hutter’s testimony about the alternative thrust plate design raised a genuine issue of fact with regard to the Lapsley’s design-defect claim. It denied summary judgment on his failure-to-warn claim. The jury found Xtek was 65 percent at fault for the accident and awarded $2.97 million. The court also denied Xtek’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law that sought reconsideration of the court’s refusal to exclude Hutter’s testimony.

With regard to the Rule 50(b) denial, Xtek didn’t argue that the evidence as actually presented was insufficient to support the jury verdict, but that it would have been insufficient without Hutter’s testimony. Xtek argued again that Dr. Hutter’s expert opinions regarding causation, alternate design, and reasonable care or foreseeability lacked scientific basis and should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

Xtek also claimed that since a design-defect claim also incorporates an element of foreseeability under Indiana law, the lack of evidence fatal to the failure-to-warn claim should have doomed the
design-defect claim as well.

The 7th Circuit rejected all of Xtek’s arguments in a 32-page opinion.

“The uniqueness of an accident can weigh against jury findings of foreseeability and lack of reasonable care in design, but that is a matter for the jury to decide,” Judge David Hamilton wrote. “The jury here accepted Dr. Hutter’s uncontradicted expert opinion that a reasonable designer would have considered the danger of the powerful spring being bound up unexpectedly and releasing its energy so as to act like a ram on the grease in the spindle assembly. Rule 702 provides a test of reliability, not of ultimate merit. District courts acting as gatekeepers of scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge evidence retain significant discretion under the flexible Daubert inquiry. The district court here did not misapply Daubert, and Xtek has identified no compelling reason to disturb the court’s exercise of its discretion.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT