Howard Nease v. Ford Motor Company
848 F.3d 219
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Howard Nease crashed his 2001 Ford Ranger after alleging a failure-to-decelerate event; plaintiffs claimed the speed-control (cruise) cable bound, leaving the throttle open and causing loss of braking vacuum.
- Plaintiffs’ sole liability expert, Samuel Sero (an electrical engineer), performed a borescope inspection, observed contaminants and striations, relied on a 1987 Ford FMEA, and opined the cable was susceptible to binding and that safer alternative designs existed.
- Sero conceded he never observed post-crash binding in any vehicle, never tested his binding hypothesis or the proposed alternatives, and did not quantify whether contaminants could overcome the throttle return spring.
- Defense experts used more rigorous testing (e.g., scanning electron microscopy) and concluded contaminants were far smaller than the 0.04-inch gap and that gouges were manufacturing marks; Ford showed the 1987 FMEA did not apply to the 2001 Ranger.
- A jury awarded plaintiffs $3,012,828.35 on a strict-liability design-defect theory; Ford renewed a Daubert challenge post-trial and sought judgment as a matter of law, arguing Sero’s testimony was inadmissible and the plaintiffs lacked proof of a defect or feasible safer alternative.
- The Fourth Circuit held the district court abused its Daubert gatekeeping role, excluded Sero’s testimony as unreliable, and reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Ford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daubert applies to engineering/technical testimony | Daubert not limited to novel science; but plaintiffs argued engineering testimony needed no Daubert scrutiny | Daubert applies to technical expert testimony and the district court must gatekeep | Daubert applies to technical/engineering testimony (Kumho followed); district court must perform gatekeeping |
| Whether Sero's causation/opinion that the speed-control assembly bound was admissible | Sero’s borescope observations and FMEA support his opinion that contaminant-induced binding caused the crash | Sero’s opinion was speculative: he neither observed binding, nor tested his hypothesis, nor quantified contaminant effect | Excluded: Sero’s failure to test or use reliable methodology rendered his binding opinion speculative and inadmissible under Rule 702/Daubert |
| Whether Sero’s alternative-design opinions were admissible to prove the product was not reasonably safe | Alternatives were long-used, proven elements (no need for testing) | No testing or data showing alternatives would have prevented this event; plaintiff must show feasible alternatives to establish state of the art | Excluded: expert’s unsupported assertion that alternatives were safer is unreliable; West Virginia requires proof of feasible safer alternative to show product not ‘reasonably safe’ |
| Whether exclusion of Sero was harmless given jury instructions/other evidence | Plaintiffs argued jury instruction and other evidence supported verdict even without Sero | Ford argued without expert proof of defect or feasible alternative, plaintiffs cannot meet West Virginia standard | Reversal: without admissible expert proof, plaintiffs cannot establish defect or safer alternative; judgment for Ford required |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts have gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702 to ensure expert testimony is reliable and relevant)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and engineering expert testimony)
- Oglesby v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 1999) (expert opinions unsupported by testing or data may be excluded as unreliable)
- McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court must exclude unreliable expert evidence; cross-examination is not a substitute for gatekeeping)
- Morningstar v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 253 S.E.2d 666 (W. Va. 1979) (design-defect standard: product must be shown not reasonably safe for its intended use; state of the art at time of manufacture is relevant)