United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 15, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41269
_____________________________________
SHEILA WALDEN
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
Defendant - Appellant
__________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
(2:01-CV-118-TJW)
__________________________________________________
Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal Crown Equipment Corporation primarily
challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling allowing John
Sevart, the Plaintiff’s expert witness, to testify. The defense
focuses on the lack of a scientific methodology for Sevart’s
testimony that it would be safer for Crown to manufacture the
forklift with a door even though it would mean the operator must
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
stay with the machine in a tip-over or off-the-dock accident.
However, under Arkansas law, the plaintiff is not required to
establish that a safer alternative design exists. French v. Grove
Manufacturing Co., 656 F.2d 295, 298(8th Cir. 1981). We agree
with Crown that Sevart’s testimony had serious deficiencies
regarding the methodology he used in arriving at his conclusion
that placing a door on a stand-up forklift would result in a
safer machine because more people would be injured, but less
severely. But, the Plaintiff was not required to establish this
fact and it did not attempt to do so in presenting its case.
Sevart’s testimony that other manufacturers made stand-up
forklifts with doors was unchallenged. Given the peculiarities
of Arkansas products liability law on this point, we are
satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
allowing Sevart to testify.
We also find no merit to Crown’s argument that the evidence
was insufficient to permit a finding that the absence of a door
on the machine was a proximate cause of Walden’s injury.
AFFIRMED.
-2-