Adelaida Anderson v. Raymond CorporationAdelaida Anderson v. Raymond Corporation
Anderson brought this diversity suit against the forklift‘s manufacturer, The Raymond Corporation, alleging that the forklift was negligently designed. As trial neared, the parties filed dueling motions over the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. John Meyer, one of Anderson‘s experts. Meyer believed that Raymond could have made a number of changes to its design that would have prevented Anderson‘s accident. Meyer‘s primary suggestion was that Raymond equip each of its forklifts with a door to enclose the operating compartment, which would prevent operators like Anderson from falling into the forklift‘s path. Like other standup forklift manufacturers, Raymond offers doors as an option that some customers choose, but Raymond does not fit doors to its forklifts as standard. Raymond says it resists fitting doors as standard because a door could impede the operator‘s ability to make a quick exit in the event the forklift runs off a loading dock or begins to tip over. The district court concluded that Meyer‘s opinion about the absence of a
The jury found that the forklift was not defectively designed and returned a verdict in Raymond‘s favor. Anderson unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, arguing then and on appeal that the erroneous exclusion of Meyer‘s opinion was substantially prejudicial to her case. We agree and reverse.
I
The erroneous exclusion of evidence warrants a new trial only if the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury‘s decision. Bintz v. Bertrand, 403 F.3d 859, 869 (7th Cir. 2005). We start with the question of whether the district court erred when it excluded Meyer‘s testimony.
Our review of an expert‘s exclusion proceeds in two steps. Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd., 932 F.3d 986, 993–94 (7th Cir. 2019). We first determine de novo whether a district court has adhered to
Here, the district court addressed Meyer‘s methodology in one sentence: “This Court finds that John Meyer‘s opinion that Raymond was negligent or that its forklift is dangerously and defectively designed because it does not come standard with a compartment door, especially one that locks or latches, simply does not pass the Daubert test.” That is a conclusion—not
Raymond argues that the district court‘s analysis was more substantial—that it made a reasoned finding when it wrote, “John Meyer‘s analysis and efforts in this case are not sufficiently exhaustive or thorough to green light a jury to consider rejecting the engineering consensus on this specific matter.” As Anderson noted, Raymond conveniently omits two essential words from the beginning of that sentence: “Raymond argues.” When pressed about this selective omission at oral argument, Raymond doubled down, arguing that the district court adopted Raymond‘s arguments by starting the next sentence with “Indeed.” We are not persuaded. Even if we were, nothing would change. What follows “Indeed” is nothing but reliance on other courts that excluded similar opinions: “Indeed, other courts have concluded that witnesses opining that a compartment door should be affixed to a [forklift] lacked sufficient reliability ... to allow their presentment for a jury‘s consideration.” That the door-as-standard opinion has been rejected elsewhere tells us nothing about Meyer‘s methodology, and a district court‘s decision to admit or exclude expert opinions must rest “solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. Thus, relying on a history of excluding the same conclusion elsewhere—without evaluating methodological or factual similarities between the proffered expert‘s opinion and those previously excluded—would still necessitate de novo review.
We conclude that Meyer‘s opinion should have been permitted. First, considering his “full range of practical experience as well as academic or technical training ... in a given area[,]” we agree with the district court that Meyer is qualified to offer his opinion. United States v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Meyer has extensive training—he received his doctorate in mechanical engineering from MIT—and experience in failure analysis. He has spent most of his professional career investigating machine accidents and performing accident reconstructions. He even has a license to operate a stand-up forklift like that at issue here, albeit not this specific model. Raymond argues that Meyer is unqualified to offer his opinion because he has limited experience with forklifts. That focus is misplaced. An expert‘s specialization or lack thereof “typically goes to the weight to be placed on [her] opinion, not its admissibility.” Hall v. Flannery, 840 F.3d 922, 929 (7th Cir. 2016); Gayton, 593 F.3d at 617 (citation omitted) (“Ordinarily, courts impose no requirement that an expert be a specialist in a given field.“). Meyer‘s extensive familiarity with accident reconstruction and training as a professional engineer qualify him to render opinions on what could have been done to prevent Anderson‘s injuries.
Second, we consider the reliability of Meyer‘s opinion by making “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. Some factors we look to include: (1) whether the particular scientific theory “can be (and has been) tested“; (2) whether the theory “has been subjected to peer review and publication“; (3) the “known or potential rate of error“; (4) the “existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique‘s operation“; and (5) whether the technique has achieved “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific or expert community. Deputy v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 345 F.3d 494, 505 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94).
Meyer‘s insights stem from his training and experience investigating industrial accidents. Meyer visited the FedEx warehouse with Anderson to reconstruct (to the best of Anderson‘s recollection) what happened. He reviewed troves of data generated from forklift accidents. He noted that Raymond implemented structural measures to guard against tipover events, where a forklift goes forks-first over a ledge or is improperly balanced while carrying a load. (Recall, the need for a quick escape in such situations was Raymond‘s justification for not fitting a door as standard.) Meyer looked to operators who elected to install the optional door Raymond offers and found no increase in tip-over injuries. From all of this, Meyer concluded that Raymond‘s reliance on training and warnings, as opposed to structural changes like those implemented to prevent tip-overs, was insufficient to mitigate the risk of an accident like Anderson‘s. Given that Raymond designed and offered a door as an option, Meyer concluded that installing it as standard was feasible and would reduce the frequency of crush accidents like Anderson‘s.
Raymond, however, insists that Meyer‘s methodology is flawed. Pointing to our opinion in Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., Raymond argues that Meyer‘s failure to conduct his own tests renders his door opinion categorically inadmissible. 269 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2001). Not so. While in Dhillon we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an expert who failed to design or test his proposed forklift door, we expressly rejected the notion that hands-on testing is an absolute prerequisite to the admission of expert testimony. Id. at 870. We reaffirm that conclusion today even though the underlying principle is obvious. An expert hoping to testify about benzene‘s effects on children need not expose children to benzene. See Schmude v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 556 F.3d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he defendant has never explained what kind of test could be performed ... except to remove the same rivet from an identical ladder, have a 350-pound man climb halfway up and start poking with his hands in the ceiling, and see what happens.“). That Raymond markets Meyer‘s proposed alternative underscores our conclusion: Raymond‘s customers who have elected to fit their forklifts with Raymond‘s optional door have been testing Meyer‘s alternative for him. Raymond can critique the use of those customers as comparators, but such arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility, of Meyer‘s testimony.
Raymond next argues that Meyer‘s methodology is unacceptable because the conclusions that flow from it have been rejected elsewhere. By now it should be clear that this is an insufficient basis for
Given that Meyer‘s methodology rests on accepted scientific principles, Raymond‘s critiques go to the weight his opinion should be given rather than its admissibility. The opinion satisfies
The final requirement—relevance—is uncontested. This is a product defect case; demonstrating a viable alternative that could have prevented Anderson‘s injury is the whole ballgame. Meyer‘s door opinion is thus relevant to the jury‘s task.
Because Meyer is qualified, his methodology is sound, and his opinion is relevant, his door opinion should have been admitted.
II
Not all errors require a new trial, and we will reverse an evidentiary ruling only when we are left with a firm conviction that the district court‘s error could have affected the jury‘s decision.
* * *
The district court‘s denial of Anderson‘s motion for a new trial is REVERSED, the judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. None of the foregoing should be read to curb the district court‘s ability to control the testimony offered at trial. Meeting