980 F.3d 605
8th Cir.2020Background
- On Oct. 20, 2015 a web sling at Weiler, Inc. broke and injured employee Joseph Hirchak; plaintiffs Joseph and Cindy Hirchak sued Grainger and its subsidiary Dayton for negligence and failure to warn.
- Grainger distributed a Juli-manufactured web-sling model under SKU 2MJT4 (branded Dayton); plaintiffs alleged the subject sling was a Grainger-distributed Juli sling.
- The Hirchaks’ expert compared the subject sling to two known Grainger-distributed Juli slings (one new purchase, one from Weiler) using FTIR, chemical, and microscopic analyses and concluded the subject sling was a Grainger-distributed Juli sling.
- Defendants submitted an affidavit stating Grainger-distributed Juli slings ship with sewn-in capacity and warning tags (which the subject sling lacked) and that Grainger had no recorded sling sales to Weiler.
- The district court excluded the expert opinion for failing to rule out the obvious alternative that the sling was a Juli sling distributed by a competitor, then granted summary judgment for defendants; the Hirchaks appealed only the exclusion ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert opinion identifying sling as Grainger-distributed Juli sling under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Expert’s comparative analyses (FTIR, chemical, microscopic) support that the sling is a Grainger-distributed Juli sling | Expert failed to rule out obvious alternative that sling was a Juli sling distributed by someone other than Grainger; opinion rests on insufficient facts | Court affirmed exclusion: expert could show sling was a Juli sling but did not account for obvious alternative that it came from a different distributor, so opinion lacked sufficient factual basis |
| Whether the record can supply the missing link (i.e., known Grainger-distributed sling in Weiler implies others are Grainger-distributed) | Presence of a known Grainger-distributed Juli sling at Weiler permits presumption that other Juli slings at Weiler were Grainger-distributed, filling expert’s analytical gap | Even if record contains such evidence, the expert cannot step beyond his specialized methodology to make that inference for the jury | Court rejected using the expert to make that inferential leap; experts cannot invade the jury’s role even if the record might support the inference |
| Sufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence to survive summary judgment after exclusion | (Not argued on appeal) | Defendants: without admissible expert, plaintiffs lack evidence tying sling to Grainger | Court affirmed summary judgment (plaintiffs waived challenge to summary judgment independent of expert exclusion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickerson v. Pride Mobility Prods. Corp., 470 F.3d 1252 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards of review for summary judgment and expert admissibility)
- Wood v. Valley Forge Life Ins., 478 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2007) (Federal Rules of Evidence govern admissibility in diversity cases)
- Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2001) (expert must account for ability to rule out other possibilities)
- Claar v. Burlington N. R.R., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (expert must address obvious alternative explanations)
- Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp., 847 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2017) (expert should adequately account for obvious alternative explanations)
- McAndrew v. Garlock Equip. Co., 537 F. Supp. 2d 731 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (excluding product-identification opinion that compared defective product only to defendant’s products)
- Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc., 686 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2012) (expert evidence excluded where analytical gap between data and opinion is too great)
- Am. Auto. Ins. v. Omega Flex, Inc., 783 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2015) (expert may state technical findings but not invade jury by making broader legal inferences)
- Robertson v. Norton Co., 148 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1998) (expert may be limited to technical conclusions and not opine on legal adequacy of warnings)