Schuring v. Cottrell, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 3d 721

Background

On Sept. 3, 2011 Gregory Schuring, a car hauler, slipped and fell from the upper deck of a Cottrell car-hauling rig while moving between vehicle positions; he alleges his foot slipped on a fluid and became wedged between an outer rail and a hinged "flipper."
Cottrell had previously retrofitted only the front head-ramp area (position No. 6) with cable guardrails after earlier fatal incidents; positions No. 8 and 10 (where Schuring fell) lacked those guardrails or catwalks.
Plaintiffs sued in Illinois state court asserting strict liability, negligence, implied warranty, willful and wanton conduct (Gregory), and loss of consortium (Mary); Cottrell removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs proffered Clarke J. Gernon, Sr., a forensic mechanical engineer with 48 years’ experience, to opine that the rig’s design was unreasonably dangerous and that feasible alternative safety features existed.
Cottrell moved to exclude Gernon under Daubert and for summary judgment arguing (1) Gernon lacks appropriate qualifications/methodology and (2) Plaintiffs cannot prove proximate cause or a proper risk-utility analysis.
The court denied both motions: it admitted Gernon (finding him qualified and his methods sufficiently reliable/helpful), and found genuine factual disputes on defect, feasibility of alternatives, and proximate causation preclude summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert (Daubert)	Gernon is qualified as a mechanical engineer to opine on rig fall-protection and alternatives; his review of photos, patents, depositions and observations suffices.	Gernon lacks industry-specific experience, did not test alternatives, and failed to perform a formal risk-utility analysis.	Court denied motion to bar: Gernon’s general mechanical engineering expertise, workup, and reasoning are sufficiently reliable and helpful to the jury.
Requirement and sufficiency of risk-utility analysis for strict liability	Plaintiffs say consumer-expectation and record evidence plus expert opinion supply sufficient risk-utility proof for a jury.	Cottrell contends Plaintiffs (and Gernon) failed to perform a proper risk-utility test, undermining any defect claim.	Court: risk-utility is a relevant inquiry but not a rigid element; gaps affect weight not admissibility; record contains material evidence for jury.
Feasibility of alternative designs (e.g., guardrails, catwalks, movable platforms)	Gernon and other record evidence show feasible alternatives existed and could be adapted to Cottrell rigs.	Cottrell points to testimony that earlier versions would not fit and that later devices post-dated the accident.	Court found factual disputes (feasibility/timing/cost) that are for the jury; summary judgment denied.
Proximate causation (foreseeability / intervening causes)	Plaintiffs argue the design foreseeably exposed drivers to falls (earlier incidents, lack of protection at positions 8/10), so causation is for the jury.	Cottrell argues intervening acts (not lowering deck, failing to inspect for fluid, Schuring’s choice to free his foot) supersede and break causation.	Court held proximate cause is ordinarily a jury question; disputed facts about foreseeability and choices preclude summary judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
Show v. Ford Motor Co., 659 F.3d 584 (discussing consumer-expectation and risk-utility in Illinois product-liability)
Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill.2d 516 (Illinois law on strict liability and proximate cause)
Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865 (alternate-design testing not always required; methodology considerations)
Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (value of testing but not an absolute prerequisite)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burdens)