Whalen v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
1:13-cv-03784
| S.D.N.Y. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (CSX employee) alleges he was injured when a Haworth Zody task chair unexpectedly reclined on Nov. 8, 2011; CSX sued under FELA and third‑partied Haworth (manufacturer) and OES (distributor) for indemnity/strict products liability.
- CSX proffered Dr. Jeffrey Ketchman (mechanical engineer) to opine the Zody had a latent "tilt‑back" design defect and inadequate warnings; Ketchman inspected an exemplar chair, took force measurements and performed informal "dynamic" tests but has limited direct office‑chair design experience.
- Haworth proffered Dr. Theresa Bellingar (Haworth corporate ergonomist, BIFMA participant) to rebut Ketchman, opining the Zody complies with industry standards and has ergonomic benefits; she disavowed being a "safety" expert and did not perform independent testing of the subject chair.
- Haworth and OES proffered Dr. Jamie R. Williams (biomedical/biomechanics) to opine plaintiff’s injuries could not have been caused by forces from the chair; Williams tested an exemplar chair and relied on biomechanical principles and cadaver studies but did not disclose a detailed, reproducible methodology.
- Parties moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to preclude opposing experts: Haworth sought to preclude Ketchman; CSX sought to preclude Bellingar; plaintiff sought to preclude Williams.
- Magistrate Judge Pitman ruled: Ketchman partially excluded (may testify to measurements/observations but not to design‑defect or warnings/failure‑to‑warn opinions); Bellingar partially excluded (may testify re: BIFMA/industry measurement standards and ergonomic utility but not to safety of Zody or accuracy judgments about measurements); Williams fully excluded (biomechanical causation opinions precluded). Plaintiff’s fee request was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Ketchman (qualifications) | Ketchman is sufficiently qualified by engineering training and related product‑design experience to opine on chair defect. | Haworth: Ketchman lacks direct office‑chair design/testing experience; prior exclusions support disqualification. | Qualified to testify generally; lack of chair‑specific experience goes to weight, not admissibility. |
| Reliability of Ketchman’s design‑defect methodology | CSX: measurements and informal dynamic testing suffice and underlying engineering judgment is self‑evident. | Haworth: testing not standardized, not peer‑reviewed, no feasibility/utility comparison or tested alternative design. | Design‑defect and dynamic‑testing conclusions excluded for lack of reliable methodology; measurement data/observations admissible as facts. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Bellingar (scope) | Haworth: Bellingar is qualified on BIFMA standards and ergonomics; can rebut Ketchman’s methods and opine on utility. | CSX: Bellingar disclaims safety expertise, relied on Haworth materials, didn’t test chair — unreliable for safety/opinion on accuracy. | May testify on industry standards, ergonomics/utility, and whether Ketchman followed BIFMA; precluded from opining the Zody is "safe" or declaring Ketchman’s measurements "dubious" without basis. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Williams (biomechanical causation) | CSX/third parties: Williams applied physics/biomechanics and cadaver literature to show forces insufficient to cause alleged injuries. | Plaintiff: Williams used exemplar not subject chair, failed to disclose reproducible methodology, misapplied cadaver studies. | Williams' causation opinions excluded for lack of disclosed, reliable methodology and analytical support; entirety of her expert testimony precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court must ensure expert testimony rests on reliable foundation and is relevant)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific expert testimony; reliability assessment is case‑specific)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (courts may exclude expert opinion when analytical gap exists between data and conclusion)
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (expert opinions must be supported by adequate data/methodology under Rule 702/Daubert)
- Stagl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 117 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (expert with general human‑machine interaction expertise may be qualified to opine in related contexts)
- Zaremba v. Gen. Motors Corp., 360 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2004) (excluding biomechanical expert where alternative design not tested and opinion speculative)
- United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2008) (admission of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)