Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech.
292 Neb. 148
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Roskop Dairy purchased a GEA-manufactured Dematron 60 automated milking control unit from Midwest; installation occurred in June 2008 and part of the purchase price remained unpaid (Midwest counterclaimed).
- After installation, the herd’s somatic cell counts (indicator of mastitis) rose markedly; Roskop observed milking units detaching while under vacuum and teat-end damage.
- Roskop sued GEA and Midwest for breach of express and implied warranties and negligence, alleging Dematron parameter settings caused premature detachment under vacuum and resultant mastitis and production loss.
- Defendants argued physical components not part of the Dematron (vented lenses, claws, hoses, maintenance) caused residual vacuum and detachment; their expert Hunt attributed the problem to improperly vented lenses and poor maintenance.
- Plaintiff’s causation experts (a management consultant Wailes and veterinarian Slattery) were limited or excluded insofar as they opined Dematron caused mastitis; district court granted defendants summary judgment for lack of admissible expert proof of mechanical causation.
- District court awarded Midwest prejudgment interest on its counterclaim; the Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment but reversed the prejudgment interest award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in excluding Wailes’s and Slattery’s causation testimony | Wailes/Slattery could tie timing and observed detachment/teat damage to Dematron and thus create a factual dispute | Their opinions were speculative, lacked sufficient factual basis and methodology, and were outside their expertise | Exclusion affirmed: causation opinions unreliable (primarily temporal correlation; insufficient methodology) |
| Whether plaintiff produced admissible evidence rebutting defendants’ prima facie case on proximate cause at summary judgment | Temporal observations and parameter records (e.g., change from 3s to 10s detach delay) show Dematron caused detachments and mastitis; malfunction theory applies | Defendants’ expert showed alternate mechanical causes (clogged/incorrect lenses, maintenance issues); plaintiff had no reliable technical expert to refute this | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff failed to present non-speculative expert evidence or satisfy malfunction theory requirements to create a material fact issue |
| Whether the malfunction (indeterminate defect) theory permitted plaintiff to avoid presenting a specific-defect expert | Malfunction doctrine allows circumstantial proof of defect without identifying a specific defect; timing and system behavior suffice | Malfunction theory is narrow; plaintiff did not eliminate other probable causes and had record evidence (vents, lenses) pointing elsewhere | Court held malfunction theory inapplicable: plaintiff failed to meet its narrow evidentiary prerequisites; temporal correlation alone is insufficient |
| Whether prejudgment interest on Midwest’s counterclaim was proper | (Midwest) Amount due was undisputed and requested 8% interest; award appropriate | (Roskop) There was a reasonable controversy during discovery over right to recover given technical disputes | Reversed: given technical complexity and ongoing discovery, reasonable controversy existed; prejudgment interest was not warranted at that stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 268 Neb. 138, 681 N.W.2d 47 (Neb. 2004) (expert testimony reliability standard)
- Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., 261 Neb. 98, 621 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 2001) (application of malfunction/indeterminate defect theory)
- Wilgro, Inc. v. Vowers & Burback, 190 Neb. 369, 208 N.W.2d 698 (Neb. 1973) (circumstantial evidence insufficient where alternate causes equally probable)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Pendleton Woolen Mills v. Vending Associates, Inc., 195 Neb. 46, 237 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. 1975) (speculation/conjecture insufficient to establish proximate cause)