Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6597
6th Cir.2012Background
- Newell filed a subrogation claim against Raymond for workers' compensation benefits paid to Hashman after a forklift accident.
- Hashman was operating a Raymond Dockstocker with an open operator compartment and no rear guard door at the time of injury.
- Newell alleged a design defect due to the absence of a standard rear guard door, arguing it allowed Hashman’s foot to be crushed.
- Ohio law at the time allowed two design-defect theories: risk-benefit and consumer-expectations; the complaint did not specify a theory.
- The district court granted Raymond’s motions to exclude Newell’s expert Railsback and for summary judgment, finding Railsback's methods unreliable and requiring expert testimony for the risk-benefit theory.
- Newell appealed seeking reversal of both the exclusion of Railsback and the summary-judgment ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Railsback under Rule 702 | Railsback is qualified; his methodology is reliable. | Railsback's methods are unreliable and not scientifically sound. | No abuse of discretion; Railsback excluded. |
| Necessity of expert testimony for risk-benefit design defect under Ohio law | Ohio requires expert for complex design defects; Railsback suffices. | Expert testimony is required to support risk-benefit theory. | District court correct; expert needed for risk-benefit theory; affirmed on this theory. |
| Consumer-expectations theory applicability and proof under Ohio law | Ohio allows consumer-expectations claim without expert; theory viable. | Brown's Tennessee-based reasoning applies; Ohio law requires expert or lacks theory. | Ohio does not share Brown's complex/simple product distinction; consumer-expectations can apply without expert, but record lacked sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. |
| Newell's waiver argument regarding consumer-expectations theory | Newell adequately indicated consumer-expectations theory in responsive brief. | Newell failed to develop the theory below. | Newell did not waive the consumer-expectations theory; the issue was preserved for review. |
| Summary judgment on consumer-expectations theory | Evidence of consumer expectations and feasibility of rear-guard design exist. | Record lacks consumer-expectations evidence and feasibility data; summary judgment warranted. | Consumer-expectations claim cannot withstand summary judgment due to lack of evidence and feasibility testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Raymond Corp., 432 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (complex forklift design defect requires expert under Tennessee law; Brown precedent applied to Ohio issue)
- Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2001) (rejecting expert where test design not shown; supports exclusion for lack of testing)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert standard for reliability of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (test of evidence reliability and methodology)
- Fed. R. Evid. 702, see 2010 edition text () (admissibility framework for expert testimony)
- Best v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 563 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 2009) (red flags in expert methodology; testing and testing stance emphasized)
- Francis v. Clark Equip. Co., 993 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1993) (alternative-design feasibility in risk-benefit context)
- Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 852 N.E.2d 215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (evidence of defective condition linking to injuries; causation standard)
- Hisrich v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 226 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2000) (consumer-expectations theory not limited to simple products; context for Ohio law)
- Raymond Corp. v. Brown, not provided () (cited as controlling framework for expert requirements in forklift design cases)