Ferguson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 1:09-cv-00635

Ferguson sues Bell for injuries from a July 16, 2007 TH-67 helicopter crash, asserting an uncommanded-cyclic movement caused loss of control.
Army investigation found barium contamination in the helicopter's servo actuators, potentially from preservative fluid 6083 used during refurbishment and storage.
Ferguson attributes the accident to a combination of barium and particulate matter in the hydraulic system causing a sticky valve and uncommanded cyclic movement.
Bell moves to preclude Dr. John Cochran as an expert under Rule 702, arguing lack of familiarity with servo actuators and unreliability of his conclusions.
Cochran, an aerospace engineer and Auburn University professor, offers testimony grounded in literature, Army findings, and independent testing by others to support Ferguson's theory.
The court must determine whether Cochran is qualified, whether his methodology is reliable, and whether his testimony would assist the fact-finder; the court denies Bell's motion to preclude.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cochran is qualified to testify about servo actuators	Ferguson shows Cochran’s aerospace background and relevant helicopter experience.	Bell contends Cochran lacks necessary design-specific experience with TH-67 actuators.	Cochran qualified to testify.
Whether Cochran's methodology and evidence are reliable under Rule 702	Cochran relies on peer-reviewed literature and Army findings to support his conclusions.	Bell argues that reliance on others' tests and absence of independent actuator testing undermines reliability.	Cochran's testimony is reliable and admissible.
Whether Cochran's testimony will assist the trier of fact	Testimony explains how barium and particulate matter could cause transient sticking and uncommanded movement.	Bell contends the reliance on studies of other valve types reduces relevance to spool-and-sleeve actuators.	Testimony would assist the fact-finder.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeper for admissibility; relevance and reliability required)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (Daubert standard applies to all experts; flexible inquiry)
United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906 (11th Cir. 1999) (non-scientific testimony may be admissible with reliable application)
Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., 654 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011) (three-part inquiry for expert admissibility)
Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 613 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2010) (rigorous three-part test; burden on proponent by preponderance)
Hudgens v. Bell Helicopters/Textron, 328 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2003) (recognizes admissibility despite lack of testing by expert)
Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2003) (variables and probative weight affect admissibility, not necessarily admissibility)
Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2001) (evidence based on literature and data analysis can be reliable)
Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (weight of studies bears on reliability, not admissibility)