Tyler Kirk v. Clark Equipment Company
991 F.3d 865
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Tyler Kirk, a Sterling Steel employee, operated a Bobcat S130 skid‑steer loader with a post‑sale 62‑inch bucket when the loader tipped forward while dumping steel scale; Kirk’s foot was crushed, causing severe permanent injuries and ~$433,000 in medical expenses.
- Sterling bought the Loader new in 2008; the Loader had solid‑rubber tires, rear counterweights, and a heavy rear light guard; its rated operating capacity (ROC) with that configuration was about 1,420 lbs.
- The Kirks sued Clark (manufacturer) under Illinois strict liability for a design defect (claiming the 62‑inch bucket fostered forward tipping) and loss of consortium.
- The Kirks’ sole expert, Daniel Pacheco, opined the 62‑inch bucket made overloading likely and caused the tip and injury; he did no testing of the Loader, did not inspect the accident scene in person, and could not determine the actual bucket weight at the time.
- The district court excluded Pacheco’s testimony under Rule 702/Daubert (finding unreliable methodology and analytical gaps) and entered summary judgment for Clark because the Kirks lacked expert proof on design defect and causation; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702/Daubert | Pacheco’s experience and reliance on industry literature, Clark’s data, and calculations rendered his opinions admissible. | Pacheco’s methodology was untested, speculative, and failed Daubert reliability factors. | Excluded: court found unreliable methodology, unsupported assumptions, lack of testing/peer review, and analytical gaps. |
| Reliability of Pacheco’s design‑defect opinion (62" bucket made Loader unreasonably dangerous) | Bucket geometry and material density calculations made overloading and tipping highly likely. | Opinion rested on speculation, no testing, no similar‑accident data, and Pacheco lacked firsthand inspection. | Excluded: court deemed the opinion speculative and unsupported. |
| Reliability of Pacheco’s causation opinion (overloaded bucket caused this accident) | Reasonable inference from bucket capacity and material density supported causation despite unknown exact weight. | Cannot know bucket weight; expert failed to rule out alternatives or test/inspect Loader; relied on mischaracterized testimony. | Excluded: court found an analytical gap and failure to exclude alternative causes. |
| Summary judgment on strict‑liability design defect without expert proof | Kirks argued consumer‑expectations or common experience could prove defect without expert. | Clark argued Loader is complex industrial equipment requiring expert proof; without expert, Kirks cannot establish critical elements. | Affirmed summary judgment: Loader is outside lay understanding; without admissible expert proof, no triable issue on design or causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial‑court gatekeeping for expert admissibility under Rule 702).
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific expert testimony).
- Gopalratnam v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 877 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2017) (articulating Daubert three‑step analysis and deference standards).
- Haley v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2017) (Rule 702/Daubert standard discussion).
- Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd., 932 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2019) (review framework for Daubert exclusions).
- Clark v. River Metals Recycling, LLC, 929 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2019) (Illinois design‑defect law requires expert proof for complex products).
- Show v. Ford Motor Co., 659 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2011) (expert testimony needed when product operation/design falls outside lay knowledge).
- Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2011) (expert must substantiate, not assume, key factual inputs).