Pitts v. Genie Indus., Inc.
921 N.W.2d 597
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Trevor Pitts, an electrician, was injured when a Genie TZ-34/20 aerial lift tipped over while he was ~30 feet up; a left rear outrigger was found retracted, making the lift unlevel.
- The lift had an extensive repair history (≈30 work orders in 2 years) including problems with the auto-leveling system and outriggers; Nebraska Machinery had sole possession after sale and performed repairs.
- Plaintiffs alleged strict liability (design and manufacturing defects), negligence, and breach of implied warranty against Genie; their sole expert was electrical engineer Dr. John Boye.
- Boye examined photos, schematics, a 2014 inspection video (showing multiple malfunctions), and a 2015 inspection; he opined an electrical malfunction caused the accident but could not identify a single component that failed.
- Boye proposed several possible causes (bad wiring/components, failed switches, taped button, etc.) and suggested a theoretical alternative 4-position keyed switch design, but did not test or peer-review it.
- The district court excluded Boye’s alternative-design testimony, admitted other portions, but granted summary judgment for Genie, finding Boye’s causation opinions speculative and insufficient; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of expert causation for design-defect strict liability | Boye tied possible electrical causes to design problems (interconnected circuitry, inadequate sheathing, diode proximity) producing an unreasonably dangerous product | Boye’s opinions only identify a set of possibilities; no reliable link showing defect existed when product left Genie or that design was "but-for" cause | Court: Boye’s causation testimony was speculative; insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
| Admissibility of alternative-design opinion | Boye proposed 4-position keyed switch as safer alternative | Genie: Boye lacks relevant lift-design experience, testing, peer review, or industry support for the design | Court: Exclusion proper under Daubert/Schafersman; Boye not qualified to opine reliably on that alternative |
| Use of malfunction (indeterminate defect) theory for manufacturing defect | Plaintiffs sought to invoke malfunction theory to infer a manufacturing defect when specific defect unknown | Genie: Plaintiffs alleged specific design defects; malfunction theory inapplicable when specific defects are asserted | Court: Malfunction theory applies to strict liability manufacturing claims generally but is unavailable here because plaintiffs also alleged specific defects; summary judgment proper |
| Whether expert need eliminate all other causes to create issue for jury | Plaintiffs: Not required to exclude all other possible causes; expert need only show reasonable probability | Genie: Expert must provide a logical sequence linking defect to injury, not mere possibilities | Court: Even assuming not required to exclude all others, Boye failed to provide the necessary logical causal sequence (must be more-probable-than-not), so plaintiffs failed proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert testimony)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (Neb. 2001) (applying Daubert principles in Nebraska)
- Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, 300 Neb. 47 (strict products-liability proof elements)
- O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 (malfunction theory unavailable where specific defects are alleged)
- Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (discussion of malfunction/indeterminate defect theory)