F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
AUG 21 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTI ALFRED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 00-6317
CATERPILLAR, INC., a foreign
corporation, doing business as CAT,
also known as CAT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. CV-99-14-C)
Thomas J. Steece (Steven R. Jung and Mark A. Mathews with him on the brief),
Steece, Mathews & Associates, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Plaintiff-
Appellant.
James A. Jennings, III (W.T. Womble, Womble & Cotellesse, Houston, Texas,
with him on the brief), Jennings Cook & Hoisington, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
for the Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Christi Alfred was on active duty with the United States Navy
when she was severely injured by a paver manufactured by defendant Caterpillar.
In this product liability suit, she alleges the paver’s design was defective and that
the defect caused her injury. At the close of her case, the district court struck the
testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness and granted defendant’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Plaintiff challenges both
rulings. We again address the issue of timing of Daubert motions, and exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse in part and affirm in part
the district court’s decision to strike plaintiff’s expert testimony on the merits and
affirm the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in defendant’s favor.
I
Alfred was assigned to a construction battalion at the United States Naval
Base in Rota, Spain. While giving hand signals to the operator of an asphalt
paver, Alfred was ordered to stand between the paver and a tree. Nearing the
tree, the operator stopped the paver on plaintiff’s signal, but upon her subsequent
order to reverse direction the operator mistakenly moved the paver forward,
pinning her against the tree. His mistake appears to have consisted of failing to
place the direction toggle switch into reverse mode before turning the rotary dial
that controls the vehicle’s speed. As a result of the accident, plaintiff’s right leg
was injured and later amputated below the knee.
-2-
Plaintiff alleges the paver’s control mechanism is defective because it is
counterintuitive; defendant responds that the accident was caused by human error
and that the mechanism is not defective or unreasonably dangerous. At trial,
plaintiff admitted that the operator made a mistake with the controls and that she
should not have been standing between the paver and the tree.
To prove her case plaintiff relied on the testimony of her liability expert,
William P. Munsell, that the paver contained a defect that made it unreasonably
dangerous and caused plaintiff’s injury—two of the elements of a manufacturer’s
product liability cause of action in Oklahoma. See Alexander v. Smith &
Nephew, P.L.C., 98 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1318 (N.D. Okla. 2000) (citing Kirkland v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1363 (Okla. 1974)). Munsell, a mechanical
engineer, testified that the use of a rotary variable speed control instead of a lever
was “not intuitive” and was a direct cause of plaintiff’s injury. (Appellee’s App.
at 40.) Plaintiff’s only evidence regarding defendant’s liability for product design
was Munsell’s testimony.
After plaintiff rested, defendant moved to strike Munsell’s testimony on the
ground that he was not qualified by knowledge, skill, training, or education to
offer opinion testimony in the case and that he had done insufficient research to
support his conclusion that the paver was defective in design. Defendant
concurrently moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
-3-
The court granted the motion to strike and, concluding that without Munsell’s
opinion plaintiff’s case was not supported by the evidence, proceeded to grant
judgment as a matter of law for defendant. The court made the following
observations:
Mr. Munsell gave an opinion that was very limited and it was
backed by very little work and very little expertise. I think Mr.
Jennings has covered all that at the bench and it need not be
repeated.
The only actual investigation that he did was to find a machine
that had the lever rather than the dial in order to satisfy himself that
it was possible, and to identify for the benefit of the jury the
guidelines and standards on which he based his conclusion.
Aside from identifying those guidelines and standards,
however, he has done no work that supports his conclusion that they
are prohibited, that the design of this machine is defective, or that the
guidelines and standard apply even to the mechanics of this machine.
....
I find that his opinion is simply not competent under Daubert
and other cases construing Daubert; that it is not supported by
sufficient testing, experience, background, education, or thought to
be relied upon by this jury. Without that opinion, I think it’s quite
clear that there is no evidence on which this case can go to the jury,
and it is for those reasons and on that basis that I grant the
defendant—first, the defendant’s motion to strike the expert
testimony and, secondly, its Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter
of law.
(Appellant’s App. at 8–9.)
II
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a “witness qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to give
opinion testimony “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
-4-
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rule 702 requires trial courts to act as gatekeepers,
admitting only expert testimony that is both reliable and relevant. 509 U.S. 579,
589 (1993). “This gatekeeper function requires the judge to assess the reasoning
and methodology underlying the expert’s opinion, and determine whether it is
scientifically valid and applicable to a particular set of facts.” Goebel v. Denver
& Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Daubert,
509 U.S. at 592).
A
We turn briefly to the timeliness of defendant’s motion to strike expert
testimony after the close of plaintiff’s case. In our recent decision of Macsenti v.
Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1230–34 (10th Cir. 2001), this Court affirmed a district
court’s rejection of Daubert objections raised by a defendant at the close of all the
evidence. In doing so, we concluded “that Defendant forfeited the opportunity to
subject the expert testimony of [the] plaintiff’s . . . experts to a Daubert challenge
by failure to make a timely objection before that testimony was admitted.” Id. at
1231.
Recognizing that the law traditionally does not reward ambush trial tactics,
in Macsenti this Court correctly criticized the practice of filing Daubert motions
-5-
at a late stage in the adversarial process when there has been no motion in limine
or concurrent objection to an expert’s participation. Counsel should not
“sandbag” Daubert concerns until the close of an opponent’s case, thereby placing
opposing counsel and the trial court at a severe disadvantage. See Macsenti, 237
F.3d at 1233–34. The truth-seeking function of litigation is best served by an
orderly progression, and because Daubert generally contemplates a “gatekeeping”
function, not a “gotcha” junction, Macsenti permits a district court to reject as
untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare
circumstances will such tardy motions, albeit allowed under our decision in
Goebel, be warranted. 215 F.3d at 1087 (indicating a district court can satisfy its
Daubert gatekeeping role “when asked to rule on a motion in limine, on an
objection during trial, or on a post-trial motion”). In this case, unlike in
Macsenti, the district court chose to address the defendant’s Daubert objections
on the merits, rather than deeming them waived. Because of the split character of
our disposition on the merits—affirming in part and reversing in part the decision
to strike Munsell’s testimony—we elect not to reach the issue of the motion’s
belated consideration, leaving for another day further development of Macsenti’s
timing jurisprudence.
-6-
B
Our review of a trial court’s exercise of its Daubert gatekeeping function is
for abuse of discretion. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 139 (1997);
Goebel, 215 F.3d at 1087; Mitchell v. Gencorp, Inc., 165 F.3d 778, 780 (10th Cir.
1999). Under an abuse of discretion standard, a ruling will not be disturbed on
appeal unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable”
or when this Court is convinced that the trial court “has made a clear error of
judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1163 (10th
Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues Munsell’s testimony qualified as admissible expert
testimony under the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert and therefore was
erroneously stricken. Munsell’s testimony was based on engineering standards
promulgated by the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”) as well as on his
investigative work. Citing SAE Standard J297, entitled “Operator Controls on
Industrial Equipment,” he opined that the variable speed control on a paver should
be in the form of a lever rather than a rotary dial. Because the paver involved in
the litigation was equipped with a rotary dial instead of a lever, he concluded, its
design was defective for failing to meet the SAE standard.
-7-
Munsell testified that he had nine years of experience in failure analysis
and evaluation of industrial accidents, including investigation and analysis of
various control mechanisms, and that he has routinely researched and applied
engineering standards promulgated by various organizations, including the SAE.
He testified further regarding his methodology in this case, which included
researching engineering standards applicable to pavers, in particular those
governing speed control mechanisms, and applying those standards to knowledge
gained during field research. Defendant did not dispute that the SAE standards
upon which Munsell’s opinion was based are well-accepted in the engineering
community. Technical committees of the SAE draft and review engineering
safety standards for mobility systems, including off-highway equipment. See
Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., 52 F.3d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1995). According to
Munsell’s testimony, several Caterpillar employees were members of committees
responsible for promulgating the SAE standards.
Based on our review of the record, we are persuaded that Munsell’s
testimony that the speed control mechanism did not comply with SAE J297 was
both reliable and relevant to the issue of defective design. See Daubert, 509 U.S.
at 589. Munsell’s testimony was reliable—meeting one of the Daubert
criteria—because it was the result of his having researched and applied standards
promulgated by an internationally recognized organization of engineers. The
-8-
testimony was relevant—meeting the other—because although it is not dispositive
and might be countered by conflicting testimony, it could allow the jury to infer
Caterpillar’s paver was defective for failing to meet industry design standards.
Because that portion of his opinion qualified as admissible expert testimony under
Rule 702 and Daubert, we hold that striking Munsell’s testimony as to the paver’s
failure to comply with SAE J297 was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
Munsell admitted that the factual issues at trial also concerned “a field of
expertise known as human factors.” (Appellee’s App. at 51.) Not only did
Munsell acknowledge that there are specialists in human factors and that he is not
one, but he also testified that his knowledge of that specialty was gained during a
trip to the library the week prior to trial, after he had arrived at his opinion
regarding the Caterpillar paver. Munsell conceded he had only looked at one
paver during his preparation for the case, and that he had never seen a paver of
the type involved in the accident or researched the control mechanisms of any
types of pavers other than the one he saw. We found no indication in the record
that Munsell had ever evaluated a paver prior to this litigation.
Those admissions demonstrate that Munsell’s qualifications in the field of
human factors were inadequate and that his field research and preparation for trial
were cursory, undermining the reliability of his opinion that the Caterpillar
paver’s control mechanism is “not intuitive” to paver operators. (Appellee’s App.
-9-
at 40.) The only information Munsell was qualified to provide based on his
experience and field research was that at least one manufacturer of pavers used
levers instead of rotary dials for variable speed control. (See Appellee’s App. at
48 (“I just know that levers are feasible.”).) The trial court was well within its
discretion in concluding, first, that the existence of one paver equipped with a
lever instead of a rotary dial, standing alone, does not constitute relevant
“specialized knowledge” that could help the jury to determine a fact in issue and,
second, that Munsell was not “qualified as an expert” in the relevant field of
human factors. Fed. R. Evid. 702. “The trial judge is granted great latitude in
deciding which factors to use in evaluating the reliability of expert
testimony . . . .” United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1266 (10th Cir. 1999).
The trial judge’s statement accompanying her ruling was sufficiently detailed to
indicate she had conducted an adequate Daubert analysis. Cf. Goebel, 215 F.3d at
1088 (holding a trial court’s Daubert ruling inadequate where there was “not a
single explicit statement on the record to indicate that the district court ever
conducted any form of Daubert analysis whatsoever”).
We reverse only the decision to strike that part of Munsell’s testimony
regarding compliance with SAE standards and affirm the balance of the Daubert
ruling based on Munsell’s lack of experience and training in human factors
- 10 -
engineering, expressing no opinion on the merits of those aspects of the
testimony. That, however, does not end the matter.
Questions remain whether the grant of judgment as a matter of law in
defendant’s favor would have been permissible had Munsell’s testimony
regarding Caterpillar’s noncompliance with SAE standards remained a part of the
evidence and been properly credited in the JMOL analysis.
III
We review de novo a grant of judgment as a matter of law. Phillips v.
Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 244 F.3d 790, 796 (10th Cir. 2001). Rule 50 “allows the trial
court to remove cases or issues from the jury’s consideration ‘when the facts are
sufficiently clear that the law requires a particular result.’” Weisgram v. Marley
Co., 528 U.S. 440, 448 (2000) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2521, at 240 (2d ed. 1995)). Munsell’s
testimony regarding the failure of the speed control mechanism to comply with
SAE J297, standing alone, was insufficient to allow a reasonable finder of fact to
conclude the paver was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Although the fact
that a piece of equipment fails to comply with published engineering standards
may allow a jury to infer that the product is defective, it does not establish, by
itself, that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to an extent
beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer. See
- 11 -
Bohnstedt v. Robscon Leasing L.L.C., 993 P.2d 135, 136 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999)
(setting forth the essential elements of a products liability action under Oklahoma
law). Aside from Munsell’s testimony, plaintiff introduced no additional
evidence to show defective design or unreasonable dangerousness. Thus, we
conclude there was an inadequate residuum of evidence that could support a
reasonable jury verdict favoring plaintiff’s product liability claim.
IV
The district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of
defendant is AFFIRMED.
- 12 -