Goldtooth v. The Western Sugar Cooperative
8:20-cv-00113
D. Neb.Nov 18, 2024Background
- Cody Goldtooth, an employee of now-defunct DSI Mechanical, was seriously injured (traumatic brain injury) in 2016 after falling through a hole at Western Sugar Cooperative's plant in Nebraska.
- The hole in question was created by a demolition subcontractor, Paul Reed Construction, and covered with plywood that Cody removed, leading to his fall.
- Cody (via guardian Jaime Goldtooth) sued Western Sugar for negligence; Western Sugar brought third-party claims against DSI, alleging DSI's failure to supervise/train Cody and sought indemnity under their contract.
- Both sides retained multiple experts in fields including engineering, safety, neurology, and psychology. Each side filed Daubert motions to wholly or partially exclude the other's expert testimony.
- The matter before the court was to rule on the admissibility of the parties’ expert testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert standards, in advance of a jury trial set for January 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualifications/reliability of Western Sugar’s safety expert Bennett | Bennett not qualified; opinions speculative, unreliable, & legal in nature | Bennett has relevant experience and training; attacks are for jury to weigh | Mostly admissible; but opinions on contract interpretation and conclusory statements excluded |
| Admissibility of expert testimony regarding OSHA standards and legal conclusions | Such testimony is helpful for jury on industry standards | Expert legal opinions inadmissible; should not opine on contracts or legal duties | Expert opinions on industry standards allowed, but not legal conclusions/contracts |
| Testimony linking Cody’s alcohol use to pre-existing disorder | Single BAC record insufficient basis for diagnosis; prejudicial | Evidence supports such diagnosis; relevant to causation | Excluded due to lack of factual support and risk of prejudice |
| Admissibility of Goldtooth’s medical/neuropsychological expert opinions on injury progression | Qualified opinions, reliable methods, meet standards | Opinions speculative, not scientifically supported, contradict defense experts | Admissible; competing evidence goes to weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (explains the gatekeeping function for trial courts regarding expert evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extends Daubert standards to all expert testimony)
- Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co., 754 F.3d 557 (Eighth Circuit test for expert admissibility)
- S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838 (expert legal conclusions are inadmissible)
- McMahon v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 5 F.4th 900 (exclusion of expert opinions fundamentally unsupported by the record)
- Academy Bank, N.A. v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 116 F.4th 768 (sets forth Eighth Circuit standard for expert testimony)
- Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706 (expert qualification relates to closeness to subject matter)