243 F. Supp. 3d 235
D. Conn.2017Background
- Plaintiff Eustathios Karavitis owned a 1990 Makita Model 5007NBA handheld circular saw; in March 2013 the saw kicked back and lacerated his left thumb while he was cutting an unsecured board and supporting it with his hand.
- Karavitis admitted he did not follow the manual instructions (he did not clamp the workpiece and did not keep both hands on the saw) and had not reread the manual in ~15 years.
- The saw carried a warning label and an operator manual that warned about keeping hands away from the blade and preventing kickback.
- Karavitis alleged the saw was defectively designed because it lacked a riving knife and that Makita failed to warn adequately; he proffered expert Lewis Barbe.
- The court excluded Barbe’s testimony under Rule 702/Daubert because his training, experience, and methodology were insufficiently tied to handheld circular saw design, and his report relied on inapplicable standards and unsupported assertions.
- After excluding the expert, the court granted Makita summary judgment on design-defect, failure-to-warn, and any implied/express-warranty claims for lack of admissible evidence showing a reasonable alternative, inadequate warnings that caused the injury, or breach within the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiff's expert (Daubert/Rule 702) | Barbe is a safety engineer whose report shows the saw lacked a riving knife and warnings were insufficient; his opinions help the jury assess design and warnings. | Barbe lacks relevant education, training, and methodology for handheld circular saws; relied on inapplicable standards and unsupported tests. | Excluded Barbe: unqualified and his analysis was unreliable and presented analytical gaps. |
| Design-defect (risk-utility / alternative design) | A riving knife was a feasible alternative that would have prevented kickback and injury; expert evidence supports this. | Plaintiff’s proof (internet printouts, excluded expert) fails to show a reasonable alternative available in 1990 or that a riving knife would have reduced risk; plaintiff misused the saw. | SJ for Makita: no admissible evidence a reasonable alternative existed or rendered the saw unreasonably dangerous; plaintiff’s misuse and lack of qualified expert fatal. |
| Failure-to-warn (adequacy and causation) | Makita’s warnings were insufficient in form/placement and a better warning might have changed plaintiff’s conduct. | Warnings and manual contained clear kickback warnings; plaintiff had not read or followed them for years and cannot show different warnings would have prevented injury. | SJ for Makita: expert required to assess warning adequacy/effect here; excluded expert leaves plaintiff without proof that a different warning would have altered conduct or caused avoidance of injury. |
| Warranty claims (implied/express) | (Implicit) Product was not safe/effective. | Saw functioned for many years; any warranty claim is time‑barred. | SJ for Makita: implied‑merchantability not shown; express warranty claims barred by statute of limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmieri v. DeFaria, 88 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1996) (motions to exclude experts aid trial process by resolving relevance/admissibility in advance)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (liberal standard for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial judge has broad latitude to determine expert reliability across disciplines)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court must ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; draw reasonable inferences for nonmovant)
- Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 321 Conn. 172 (Conn. 2016) (products liability elements and proof defect existed at time of sale)
- Bifolck v. Philip Morris, 324 Conn. 362 (Conn. 2016) (risk‑utility and consumer‑expectation frameworks for design‑defect claims)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (exclude expert opinion when analytical gap between data and opinion is too great)
- Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn. 213 (Conn. 1994) (summary judgment appropriate when reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion on causation)