Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15526
7th Cir.2012Background
- Lapsley was severely injured by a high-velocity grease jet from a spindle in a Bethlehem Steel steel mill, alleged to be caused by a design defect in Xtek’s spindle with an internal spring exerting over 10,000 pounds of force.
- Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Hutter posited that the spring bound up during maintenance/installation, releasing energy to propel grease through a port and injure Lapsley; an alternative thrust-plate design with grooves could have reduced the injury.
- The spindle had been reconditioned by Xtek and reinstalled; the grease port and fittings were involved, with Lapsley removing a zerk fitting to grease the end pods.
- The district court admitted Dr. Hutter’s testimony after a Daubert analysis and denied Xtek’s motion to exclude it; the court also granted summary judgment on some non-design-defect claims but allowed the design-defect claim to proceed to trial.
- After a five-day trial, the jury awarded $2.97 million against Xtek (65% fault to Xtek, 35% to the mill owner), and Xtek challenged Daubert rulings and post-trial motions.
- The Seventh Circuit affirms, upholding the Daubert admissibility and denial of judgment as a matter of law based on Dr. Hutter’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert admissibility of causation testimony | Lapsley: Hutter’s calculations are reliable; district court properly admitted | Xtek: Hutter’s methods are unreliable/opaque; not scientific | Admissible under Daubert; district court acted within its gatekeeping discretion |
| Admissibility and effect of alternative design evidence | Grooves in thrust plate could have reduced jet velocity and injury | Alternative design evidence is insufficient or speculative | Not an abuse of discretion to admit; could support design-defect claim |
| Foreseeability/reasonable care in design | Dr. Hutter’s foreseeability opinion should be admitted as engineering expert | Foreseeability not adequately supported | Foreseeability evidence properly admitted; jury can evaluate reasonable care under Indiana law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (flexible Daubert reliability standard; gatekeeping authority retained by the trial court)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping role; reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
- United States v. Lupton, 620 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming deferential review of Daubert rulings when analysis adequate)
- ATA Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 665 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2011) (Daubert standard unchanged; discuss reliability of regression analysis)
- Pries v. Honda Motor Co., 31 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 1994) (design defect; cost-effectiveness and reduction of injury standard under Indiana law)
- Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) (hypothetical explanations of probable causes permitted with analytic basis)