Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
2:20-cv-05615
| E.D.N.Y | Apr 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Ferlito sued Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., claiming a splitting maul (axe) purchased in 2017 was defectively designed after its head detached, causing him injury.
- Defendant argued the accident resulted from plaintiff’s misuse, suggesting a crack in the handle indicated mishandling rather than a design flaw.
- Plaintiff intends to support his claim with expert testimony from Mark Lehnert, who has decades of product design and engineering management experience but lacks formal engineering degrees.
- Defendant moved to exclude Lehnert’s expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, alleging insufficient qualifications and unreliable methodology, partly due to his use of ChatGPT in his research process.
- The court conducted a Daubert hearing to assess Lehnert’s qualifications and the reliability of his testimony, including his use of AI tools for post-report confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Lehnert be qualified as an expert despite lacking degrees? | Practical experience is sufficient | No relevant degrees; limited to power tools, not manual tools | Lehnert is qualified based on practical experience |
| Is Lehnert’s methodology reliable under Rule 702 & Daubert? | Industry comparison suffices; market examples | No testing; reliance on untested sources | Methodology is reliable—similar products suffice |
| Does use of ChatGPT undermine expert reliability? | ChatGPT only confirmed existing conclusions | ChatGPT use casts doubt; potential for false authority | No reliability issue since expert didn’t rely on ChatGPT |
| Should Lehnert’s hyperbole exclude his testimony? | Hyperbole is not a basis for exclusion | Overstatement undermines credibility | Not grounds for exclusion, but witness cautioned |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038 (2d Cir. 1995) (practical experience and knowledge can qualify an expert regardless of academic credentials)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (sets standards for admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert standards apply to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (enumerates flexible factors for reliability of expert opinions)
- Lappe v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 101 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 1996) (doubts about usefulness of an expert’s testimony should be resolved in favor of admissibility)