Pitts v. Genie Indus.
302 Neb. 88
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Trevor Pitts, an electrician, was injured when a Genie TZ-34/20 aerial lift tipped over while he was ~30 ft. up; one rear outrigger was found retracted.
- The lift had a history of repairs (~30 work orders over 2 years) including problems with auto-leveling and a failed limit switch shortly after sale.
- Genie manufactured the lift with a three-position key switch intended to prevent platform controls from operating outriggers; Genie tested units and followed applicable standards and had no knowledge of similar tip-over incidents.
- Plaintiffs retained electrical engineer Dr. John Boye as their sole expert; Boye had no prior aerial-lift design experience, reviewed photos, videos, service records, and performed later inspections but could not identify the precise component that failed.
- Boye opined generally that an electrical malfunction caused the tip-over and identified several possible causes (some post-sale) and alleged design problems (interconnected circuitry, inadequate sheathing, diode proximity); he also proposed, untested, an alternative four-position switch.
- The district court excluded Boye’s alternative-design testimony, admitted limited causation/design opinions, but granted Genie summary judgment because Boye’s causation opinions were speculative and the malfunction theory was inapplicable where specific design defects were alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert's alternative-design opinion | Boye may opine that a four-position switch was a safer design | Genie: Boye lacks relevant lift-design expertise, testing, or peer review for reliability | Court: Exclusion affirmed — Boye unqualified/reliability insufficient under Daubert/Schafersman |
| Whether Boye’s expert evidence creates a factual dispute on design-defect causation | Boye showed lift was unreasonably dangerous and one of several electrical problems (linked to design) probably caused the malfunction | Genie: Opinions are speculative, list multiple possible causes including post-sale tampering/repair; no proof defect existed at time of sale | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — causation testimony speculative, not ‘more likely than not’ |
| Applicability of malfunction (indeterminate-defect) theory to manufacturing-defect claim | Plaintiffs may use malfunction theory to infer an unspecified defect caused the tip-over | Genie: Plaintiffs point to specific design defects — malfunction theory not proper when specific defects alleged | Court: Malfunction theory applies in strict liability generally but is unavailable here because plaintiffs alleged specific design defects; summary judgment affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence that product was defective when sold | Plaintiffs: Boye’s opinions and service history create inference defect existed when left Genie | Genie: Service/alterations after sale and lack of proof linking alleged conditions to time of sale defeat inference | Court: Insufficient evidence that defect existed at sale or proximately caused injury; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping reliability of expert testimony)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (Nebraska application of Daubert standard for experts)
- Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 300 Neb. 47 (elements and standards in products-liability claims)
- O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 (malfunction theory inapplicable where plaintiff alleges specific design defects)
- Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (discussion of malfunction/indeterminate-defect theory)
- Fackler v. Genetzky, 263 Neb. 68 (expert testimony must be more probable than speculative for causation)