994 F.3d 1224
10th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Nathan Petersen operated a Raymond Model 4200 stand-up forklift with an open operator compartment; his left leg exited the opening during a loss of control and was crushed.
- Petersen sued Raymond under Utah strict products liability, alleging the open back made the forklift defective and that a door would have been a safer alternative.
- Plaintiff proffered an expert (Berry) who opined generally that “a door” would make the forklift safer but declined to specify a particular door design, materials, attachment method, or provide engineering drawings or tests specific to the Raymond forklift.
- Raymond moved to exclude the expert under Rule 702 and Daubert standards and moved for summary judgment arguing Petersen could not prove an essential element (existence of a feasible, safer alternative) without admissible expert testimony.
- The district court held evidentiary hearings, excluded the expert as unreliable for failing to present a definitive, testable alternative design, and granted summary judgment for Raymond; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony that merely endorses “a door” in general is admissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Berry’s general opinion that adding a door would be safer is reliable and sufficient | Generalized, non‑specific opinions are unreliable and unhelpful to the jury | Excluded: expert must offer reliable, testable methodology and cannot rely on sweeping, non‑specific alternatives |
| Whether Utah strict‑liability law requires a plaintiff to identify a specific alternative design | Petersen: Utah law does not limit the number of alternatives; need not present a single specific design | Raymond: plaintiff must show at least one feasible, safer alternative that can be compared to the product | Held: plaintiff must present at least one definite, feasible alternative design for comparative analysis |
| Whether failure to test an alternative design on the specific product renders the expert unreliable | Petersen: expert need not personally test the design; existing literature can suffice | Raymond: lack of testing or specific analysis on the Raymond forklift undermines reliability | Held: absence of testing/specific analysis on the forklift (or comparable, well‑explained data) supports exclusion where methodology is otherwise unsupported |
| Effect of expert exclusion on summary judgment | Petersen: exclusion is improper, so summary judgment should not follow | Raymond: with expert excluded, plaintiff cannot prove essential element (safer alternative) | Held: Because the expert was properly excluded, summary judgment for Raymond was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes reliability inquiry for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (applies Daubert gatekeeping to all expert testimony)
- Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for exclusion and discussion of reliability)
- Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., 8 F.3d 1470 (10th Cir.) (Utah strict‑liability requirement for alternative, safer design)
- Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.) (excluding expert who proposed restraints but never provided a specific, testable design)
- Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865 (7th Cir.) (expert methodology unreliable where no tested door model was designed for the truck)
- Brown v. Raymond Corp., 432 F.3d 640 (6th Cir.) (excluding expert for failing to test alternative on the specific forklift)
- Wankier v. Crown Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff must prove existence of a safer, feasible alternative under Utah law)