JACK SUSER VS. DELAVAN INDUSTRIES, INC. VS. S&J METAL MANUFACTURING, INC. VS. M&G INDUSTRIES, INC. (L-1285-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3996-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 25, 2017Background
- Jack Suser was injured in 2010 when a metal chain used to tie down a vehicle on his 2000 Delavan/Lohr-manufactured trailer broke; only a 4-foot corroded portion of the chain was preserved.
- Plaintiff sued Delavan and Lohr (manufacturer/sellers) alleging design, manufacturing, and failure-to-warn defects under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA).
- Discovery revealed the broken chain was likely an aftermarket component; defendants’ expert opined the chain was aftermarket and industry-accepted, while plaintiff’s expert inspected the remaining chain but performed no testing.
- Plaintiff’s expert opined the chain was defective, criticized the chain design, and referenced a 2016 competitor website showing fabric straps as an allegedly safer alternative.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude plaintiff’s liability expert as offering improper “net opinion.” Shortly after, evidence suggested Columbus McKinnon manufactured the chain; plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add that party.
- The trial court excluded plaintiff’s expert opinion as net opinion, granted summary judgment for Delavan and Lohr, and denied leave to add Columbus McKinnon as futile. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiff's liability expert under net-opinion doctrine | Suser: expert's inspection and opinions were sufficient to show defect, alternative design, and inadequate warning | Delavan/Lohr: expert gave conclusory opinions without objective support or reference to standards; thus net opinion inadmissible | Court: expert’s opinions were net opinion, lacked objective support (no standards, no testing, reliance on 2016 web example), properly excluded |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support PLA design/manufacturing/warning claims | Suser: chain failure demonstrates defect; alternative (fabric straps) and rust support defect and lack of warnings | Defendants: chain was aftermarket, permitted by federal regs, and plaintiff lacked expert proof of state-of-the-art or manufacturing defect | Court: dismissal proper—plaintiff lacked admissible expert proof and chain was likely aftermarket, relieving Delavan/Lohr under PLA defenses |
| Use of post-accident/2016 evidence to show state of the art in 2000 | Suser: competitor’s 2016 fabric strap evidence shows safer alternative | Defendants: 2016 web material is not evidence of state of the art in 2000 and cannot supplant required proof | Court: 2016 website is not competent proof of a feasible alternative in 2000; expert failed to tie alternative to time of manufacture |
| Motion to amend complaint to add Columbus McKinnon late in discovery | Suser: moved promptly after affidavit identified chain maker; sought additional discovery and expert supplementation | Defendants: amendment would be untimely and prejudicial; plaintiff’s expert deficiencies wouldn’t be cured merely by naming manufacturer | Court: denial affirmed as not an abuse of discretion—amendment would be futile given expert’s deficiencies and speculative benefit of further discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (2014) (expert testimony may not be mere net opinion; must give the why and wherefore)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (net-opinion doctrine prohibits conclusory expert testimony lacking adequate factual or methodological support)
- Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175 (2005) (complex products cases generally require qualified expert proof when issues fall outside common knowledge)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (admissibility of expert testimony committed to trial court’s discretion; appellate review for abuse of discretion)