Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc.
725 F.3d 753
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Stollings lost fingers in a kickback accident while using a Ryobi Model BTS20R table saw and sued Ryobi for defective design for failing to include a riving knife or automatic braking (flesh-detection) technology.
- Ryobi’s saw had a 3‑in‑1 guard (splitter, anti‑kickback pawls, blade shield) that complied with UL and OSHA standards; plaintiff had removed the guard before the accident.
- Stephen Gass, inventor of flesh‑detection technology (later SawStop), testified for Stollings about the technology’s effectiveness and licensing history; Ryobi had not licensed Gass’s patent.
- At trial Ryobi repeatedly argued (beginning in opening) that plaintiff’s counsel and Gass were engaged in a “joint venture” to file suits to force manufacturers to license the technology, relying on an Oregonian article—an allegation the court later recognized targeted counsel’s motives.
- The district court excluded economist John Graham’s testimony on the societal cost‑benefit of mandatory braking technology under Rule 702, and gave jury instructions including an Illinois pattern proximate‑cause instruction with an added “sole proximate cause” sentence.
- The jury returned a verdict for Ryobi; on appeal the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for a new trial because the joint‑venture attack and related hearsay were improper and prejudicial, and also addressed the expert exclusion and jury instruction errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper attack on plaintiff's counsel motives and admission/use of newspaper hearsay | Stollings: counsel’s motives are irrelevant; Ryobi’s joint‑venture theory was unsupported hearsay and prejudicial | Ryobi: article and related evidence showed bias of Gass and a pattern of litigation that bore on credibility | Court: Ryobi’s joint‑venture argument was improper and prejudicial; admission/use of the Oregonian article was hearsay and contributed to unfair trial; new trial ordered |
| Exclusion of economist Graham under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Stollings: Graham’s cost‑benefit methodology was reliable and relevant; effectiveness assumptions for braking affect weight, not admissibility | Ryobi: Graham’s 90% effectiveness input was unreliable and untimely; testimony irrelevant to Ryobi saw specifically | Court: Exclusion was abuse of discretion—methodology was admissible, assumptions go to weight; testimony was relevant under Illinois risk‑utility inquiry |
| Unreasonably dangerous (design‑defect) instruction | Stollings: wanted Illinois pattern instruction and to ensure jurors could consider broad risk/utility factors (including societal cost) | Ryobi: court’s supplemental Calles factors adequate; no error | Court: Instruction (pattern plus Calles factors, non‑exhaustive) was proper and not confusing |
| Proximate‑cause instruction including “sole proximate cause” language | Stollings: language would confuse jury and invite comparative‑fault analysis after Ryobi abandoned that defense | Ryobi: instruction stated correct law in abstract | Court: Giving the sole‑proximate‑cause sentence was likely confusing and erroneous where no third‑party causation or comparative‑fault defense was asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeper role for expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702)
- United States v. Klebig, 600 F.3d 700 (factors for assessing prejudicial effect of improper argument)
- Gruca v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp., 51 F.3d 638 (improper trial focus on irrelevant third‑party conduct or counsel motives can require new trial)
- Chicago Firefighters Local 2 v. City of Chicago, 249 F.3d 649 (newspaper article offered for truth is inadmissible hearsay)
- McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038 (trial courts should not usurp jury role by performing searching credibility inquiries for expert testimony)