Danny Crawford v. ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC
977 F.3d 1331
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff Danny Crawford’s arm was amputated when his Hobart Model 6614 vertical band saw (manufactured by ITW FEG) ran with the manual blade guard left up while he was distracted. Crawford and his wife sued for negligent design; strict-liability claim was withdrawn during trial.
- Plaintiffs relied on Professor Ralph Barnett (mechanical engineer) who built and demonstrated an alternative, self‑deploying blade‑guard (foot‑pedal/air) and testified it was feasible and would have prevented the injury; Dr. Mark Edwards (human factors) testified about inattentional blindness and inevitability of human error.
- Plaintiffs introduced OSHA incident summaries showing injuries from adjustable guards and noting OSHA guidance favoring self‑adjusting guards; FEG disputed similarity and trustworthiness of those reports.
- FEG moved to exclude Barnett under Daubert and challenged a supplemental affidavit (identifying prior saws/patents) as untimely under Rules 26/37; district court admitted Barnett and the OSHA summaries and denied judgment as a matter of law and a new trial.
- Jury apportioned fault 70% to Crawford/30% to FEG and awarded ~$13.5M total damages (FEG liable for ~$4.05M); on appeal FEG contested expert admissibility, supplemental disclosure, sufficiency of negligent‑design evidence, omission of a state‑of‑the‑art instruction, and admission of OSHA reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Barnett’s alternative‑design testimony (Daubert) | Barnett is qualified; he built, tested, patented, peer‑submitted and demonstrated a working alternative; challenges go to weight. | Barnett didn’t sufficiently test feasibility at time of manufacture or show commercial viability; testimony unreliable. | Admitted: district court did not abuse discretion — methodology and testing (constructed model, video, patent/peer submission) were adequate; controverted points go to weight. |
| Supplemental affidavit identifying prior saws/patents (Rule 26/37) | Supplement was harmless/substantially justified; affidavit came months before trial and FEG could have deposed or explored at trial. | Late disclosure changed theory after deadlines, deprived FEG of discovery/preparation and should be excluded under Rule 37. | Affirmed: appellate court narrowly held district court did not abuse discretion in finding the late affidavit harmless under these facts (but declined to set broad precedent). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligent‑design (risk‑utility / consumer‑expectations) | Evidence (experts + OSHA reports + demonstration) supports that non‑auto guard posed grave foreseeable risk, safer alternatives existed and were feasible — satisfies risk‑utility and consumer‑expectations. | FEG argued wrong standard applied, no adequate alternative existed at time of manufacture, warnings were adequate; evidence insufficient as a matter of law. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, there was legally sufficient evidence under risk‑utility and consumer‑expectations to let the jury decide. |
| Failure to give Florida state‑of‑the‑art instruction (Fla. Stat. § 768.1257) | Instruction unnecessary or inapplicable to negligence; omission was harmless because parties agreed on relevant time (2010) and state of the art. | Jury should have been told to consider state of the art at time of manufacture (2010); omission prejudiced FEG. | Affirmed: even assuming statute applies to negligence, omission was not reversible error — relevant time and state‑of‑the‑art were undisputed and negligence instruction covered similar ground. (Dissent would have reversed.) |
| Admission of OSHA reports (hearsay/relevance) | Reports are factual findings from lawful investigations and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8); probative on foreseeability/notice. | Reports are untrustworthy, sometimes double hearsay, and not sufficiently similar — should be excluded. | Admitted: district court did not abuse discretion — reports fall within Rule 803(8) public‑records exception, FEG failed to show lack of trustworthiness, and reports were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for admissibility of expert scientific/technical testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony; reliability is flexible)
- Quiet Tech. DC‑8, Inc. v. Hurel‑Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing admissibility from weight; cross‑examination addresses methodological flaws)
- McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for expert admissibility rulings)
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (public‑records hearsay exception principles and trustworthiness factors)
- Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Eastern Shore Toyota, LLC, 684 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; jury deference)
- Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489 (Fla. 2015) (discussing consumer‑expectations and risk‑utility tests in product‑defect context)
- Radiation Tech., Inc. v. Ware Constr. Co., 445 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1983) (articulating risk‑utility factors for design defect analysis)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (admissibility of prior‑accident evidence: similarity, remoteness, probative vs. prejudice)
- Borden, Inc. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750 (11th Cir. 1985) (prior incidents admissible to show notice, magnitude of danger, and for impeachment)