Pennsylvania Trust Co. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.
851 F. Supp. 2d 831
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Ethan Waltman, a two-year-old, was injured in a minivan crash allegedly due to a defective Cosco Grand Explorer booster seat.
- This case was removed to federal court and placed in suspense in 2009 and again due to unsettled law between Third Circuit and Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Restatement standards.
- The dispute centers on whether Pennsylvania products-liability law applies under the Second or Third Restatement of Torts, affecting many motions in limine and Daubert challenges.
- Numerous Daubert motions and evidentiary challenges were pending, with some remaining undecided until Restatement conflicts are resolved.
- The court decided to proceed on the merits for a subset of motions while preserving decisions related to Restatement-based issues and certain Daubert matters for later hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Restatement governs the case | Plaintiff favors the Second Restatement. | Defendant favors the Third Restatement. | Restatement issue unresolved pending higher-court resolution; motions denied without prejudice. |
| Admissibility of Van Arsdell's testimony | Van Arsdell lacks appropriate expertise for seat design opinions. | Van Arsdell has sufficient engineering expertise to opine on design and FMVSS compliance. | Van Arsdell's testimony is admissible. |
| Admissibility of Corrigan's brain-injury causation opinions | Corrigan is not qualified to diagnose brain injury causation as she is not a medical doctor. | Corrigan is a qualified biomechanical engineer capable of testifying on injury causation. | Corrigan may testify; foundation, qualifications, and reliability found adequate. |
| Evidence of compliance with FMVSS and related testimony | Evidence of FMVSS compliance is relevant to design defect and safety. | FMVSS compliance evidence should be limited or excluded under Restatement-based objections. | Denied without prejudice pending Restatement resolution. |
| Other evidentiary restrictions (foreign labeling, other accidents, and post-manufacture changes) | Foreign labeling and other accidents support notice and defect arguments. | Such evidence is prejudicial or irrelevant absent proper foundation. | Foreign-labeling evidence excluded; other-accidents and post-manufacture evidence denied or reserved without prejudice as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (Daubert reliability framework applied to expert testimony)
- Hendrix v. Evenflo Co., 255 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Fla. 2009) (engineering testimony on FMVSS 213 admissible)
- Cantor v. Perelman, 2006 WL 3462596 (D. Del. 2006) (testable hypothesis in vehicle design evidence)
- Sochor v. Sochor, 2009 WL 1392085 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Sochor on neck-injury criteria for child dummies)
- Gumbs v. Int’l Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1983) (admissibility of evidence of notice and design defect)