Buttaccio v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
175 A.3d 311
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mike Buttaccio, a longtime railroad carman, sued his employers under FELA for shoulder, knee, and carpal tunnel injuries he attributed to years of heavy, awkward railroad work.
- Trial jury awarded $600,000; court molded to $597,000 after .5% comparative negligence; defendants (Penn Central/Penn Central successor, Conrail, CSX) appealed.
- Defendants sought exclusion of plaintiff’s ergonomics expert, Dr. Andres, arguing his methodology lacked general acceptance and objective measurements at the specific worksite.
- Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence/argument about inadequate manpower and to exclude testimony that defendants received “thousands of claims” from other employees; the court granted the manpower motion but denied the other-claims motion without a hearing.
- At trial, plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly questioned manpower despite the preclusion order and made an inflammatory, unrelated remark implying two CSX employees were killed; defendants objected and sought mistrial but were denied.
- Superior Court: upheld admissibility of Dr. Andres’ methodology, reversed judgment and ordered a new trial because counsel repeatedly violated the preclusion order and the court failed to grant mistrial/curative instruction for the prejudicial remark; remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the “other claims” evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ergonomics expert under Pa.R.E. 702 / Frye (general acceptance) | Dr. Andres used established ergonomic science, 3DSSPP modeling, literature, and extensive experience to opine causation and risk factors | Methodology not generally accepted; lacked on-site measurements and objective force data for Buttaccio’s specific tasks | Admissible: methodology generally accepted; expert could rely on literature, modeling, and experience; weight for jury to assess |
| Need for Frye hearing / site visit requirement | Not necessary; ergonomics literature and expert’s experience suffice even without on-site observation | Expert should have observed the specific yard and taken direct measurements | No Frye hearing required; lack of site visit goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Violation of limine precluding manpower evidence | Any manpower questioning was proper factual impeachment/background | Counsel repeatedly violated pretrial order by eliciting manpower testimony and argument | New trial required: intentional, repeated violations of pretrial order prejudicial; curative instructions insufficient |
| Prejudicial remark about two CSX employees’ deaths | Remark was irrelevant and unrelated; defense requested mistrial and curative instruction | Plaintiff’s counsel’s question was improper but isolated | New trial required: trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial and failing to give curative instruction for inflammatory remark |
| Admission of testimony that defendants received "thousands of claims" from other employees | Such evidence shows pattern and notice of ergonomic risks | Lacked proof of substantial similarity; prejudicial without hearing | Remanded: trial court must hold evidentiary hearing on admissibility of other-claims evidence prior to retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (expert testimony admissibility is discretionary; Frye principles applied)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (scientific evidence admissible only if methodology gained general acceptance)
- Hewitt v. Metro–North Commuter R.R., 244 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (ergonomics expert methodologies generally accepted; on-site observation not always required)
- Poust v. Hylton, 940 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2007) (violation of pretrial order about prejudicial matter requires new trial)
- Mirabel v. Morales, 57 A.3d 144 (Pa. Super. 2012) (intentional violation of pretrial order mandates new trial)
- Lockley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 5 A.3d 383 (Pa. Super. 2010) (admissibility of other-claims evidence requires substantial similarity)
- K.H. ex rel. H.S. v. Kumar, 122 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2015) (an expert with reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge may testify; weight for jury)
- Narciso v. Mauch Chunk Twp., 87 A.2d 233 (Pa. 1952) (irrelevant prejudicial remarks may require new trial)