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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT