Revised November 3, 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40365
JOHN BARTLEY, MIKE RUCKER, CHRIS LUKER,
WALTER HENRY, and TIM HUMBER,
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
PLANET INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor Plaintiff/Appellee,
VERSUS
EUCLID, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
EUCLID, INC.
Defendant/Intervenor Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
October 20, 1998
Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
The appeal in this diversity case challenges a jury verdict
and resulting judgment awarding four plaintiffs a total of $2.8
1
million, exclusive of prejudgment and post-judgment interest, on
products liability and negligence theories against a manufacturer
of coal hauling vehicles. The plaintiffs cross-appeal to challenge
the jury finding that their own negligence contributed to their
injuries. We affirm.
I. PROCEEDINGS
Between May and October 1994, plaintiffs John Bartley1, Mike
Rucker, Chris Luker, Walter Henry and Tim Humber sued Euclid and
others asserting personal injury/products liability claims under
Texas law. The suits were filed in federal court invoking
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In December
1995, the district court sua sponte consolidated these actions.
Euclid’s motions for summary judgment, challenging the admission of
plaintiffs’ expert testimony on the basis of Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), were denied, and the case was
tried to a jury. The district court entered judgment on the jury’s
verdict which found, inter alia, that Euclid’s coal haulers were
defective; that both Euclid and the plaintiffs were negligent; and
that the coal haulers caused injuries and damages to the
plaintiffs.
II. FACTS
Euclid designs, builds, and markets heavy equipment including
1
John Bartley advised this court that he has settled his claim
and withdrawn his appeal.
2
120-ton vehicles used for hauling coal at open pit coal mines.
Initially, Euclid’s coal haulers were built with the engine mounted
in front of the operator’s cab, which design was termed “long-
nosed.”2 In the mid-1970's, a new design, termed “short-nosed”
because its engine was moved back on the chassis so that it rested
partially under the operator’s cab, was introduced.3 The new
design differed from the earlier model in other ways, including
using a shorter wheel base, and a trailing arm suspension system
with rubber struts instead of steel springs. The short-nosed coal
haulers, which are the subject of this litigation, have better
visibility from the driver’s seat and better maneuverability, but
a considerably rougher ride.
Plaintiffs, males ranging in age from 32 to 46 years, were all
employees of Texas Utilities Mining Company (“TUMCO”) and operated
Euclid short-nosed coal haulers in the course and scope of their
employment. They brought suit against Euclid claiming that they
had sustained back injuries as a consequence of long term
repetitious trauma and severe vibrations experienced while
operating Euclid’s short-nosed coal haulers.
III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
a. Standard of review
Euclid contends that the district court abused its discretion
2
Euclid’s long-nosed coal hauler is model 208 LDT.
3
Euclid’s short-nosed coal hauler is model 322 NDT.
3
and violated its gate-keeping responsibilities under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) by admitting
the plaintiffs’ expert testimony. We review district court rulings
on the admission of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. See
General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, ___U.S.___, 118 S. Ct. 512, 517
(1997); see also Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., ___F.3d___ (5th
Cir. 1998)(en banc).
b. District court ruling
Plaintiffs’ experts fall into two categories. Dr. Charles
Aprill, Dr. Richard Bunch and Dr. Kelvin Samaratunga had formal
training in the medical and physical therapy fields and were called
to testify concerning causation. Arthur Chaseling and Geoff
McDonald have formal training in the field of engineering and were
called to testify regarding alleged design defects and potential
alternative designs. The district court specifically found that
both groups possessed sufficient qualifications to be considered
experts, that their proffered evidence was reliable and relevant
and that the probative value of the evidence was not “substantially
outweighed by any type of prejudice.”
The district court first considered whether the experts
satisfied the requirements set out by Federal Rule of Evidence 702
and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
4
(1993).4
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will assist the trier of fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form
of an opinion or otherwise.
The district court began its analysis by acknowledging that, under
Texas law, plaintiffs’ medical causation evidence, as well as the
engineering evidence, are subject to the standards set out by the
Supreme Court in Daubert.
The district court listed the non-exclusive Daubert factors
which it applied: 1) whether a theory or technique can be or has
been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer
review and publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error has
been established; and (4) whether the theory is “generally
accepted” within the scientific community. See Daubert, 509 U.S.
at 593-94. The district court then cited United States v. Downing,
753 F.2d 1224 (3rd Cir. 1985) in support of three additional
factors that the district court found instructive to a reliability
4
In January 1997, when the district court ruled on this motion,
the Fifth Circuit had not squarely addressed whether Daubert
applied to “non-scientific” expert testimony. The district court
noted that uncertainty, but found it to be of no consequence to the
determination of the motion, because all of the experts satisfied
the requirements of Daubert. The subsequent decision in Watkins v.
Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1997), holding that Daubert
is not limited to “scientific knowledge,” is therefore satisfied by
the district court’s analysis.
5
determination:(1) the existence of a body of literature dealing
with a particular topic or technique; (2) the qualifications and
professional stature of the witness in question; and (3) the
relationship of the current theory to other methods of analysis.
c. Causation experts
Euclid specifically challenges the district court finding that
Plaintiffs’ causation experts offered reliable evidence.
Dr. Aprill, a medical doctor specializing in diagnostic
radiology, evaluated Plaintiffs’ spinal problems and researched the
cause of those problems. Aprill’s research involved comparing the
Magnetic Imaging Resonance (“MRI”) scans of 90 individuals who
drove the coal haulers that are the subject of this case with the
MRI scans of 80 back pain patients, age and sex matched to the
hauler drivers. Aprill employed mainstream scientific research
techniques to preclude bias in his conclusions. These included
Aprill reading MRIs without knowing whether the scans were taken
from hauler drivers or from the control group, as well as
intraobserver reliability checks by which a colleague selected
random MRIs for double readings without Aprill’s knowledge. He
also testified concerning the results of another study of endplate
fractures conducted in Minneapolis, finding that the MRIs of 38% of
asymptomatic Minneapolis subjects revealed broken endplates
compared to 41% in his study.
Aprill concluded that the MRIs of the hauler driver group
6
demonstrated multiple endplate fractures at multiple levels in the
dorsal and lumbar spines and that accelerated disc degeneration
occurred more often and at more levels in the hauler driver group
than in the comparable group of people with back pain. He termed
this finding statistically significant. The multiple endplate
fractures demonstrated by the coal hauler population suggested to
Aprill that those individuals were subject to repetitive vertical
compression resulting in fractured endplates. Aprill’s opinions
were supported by an article appearing in 1992 in Clinical
Biomechanics, stating that exposure to whole body vibrations causes
structural damage to the endplate and subchondral bone. Aprill
stated that he found this “fingerprint” condition throughout the
hauler driver population. Although endplate abnormalities are
fairly common, the drivers had not only more end plate fractures
than the control population, but also an uncommon distribution of
these fractures. Specifically, Aprill testified that in mature
human populations most injuries appear in the lumbar (lower back)
region, with cervical (neck) injuries next and dorsal spine
injuries a distant third. The number of dorsal injuries Aprill
found in the hauler driver population was very unusual. Further,
the control group included individuals who had exposure to other
risk factors identified by Euclid as possibly causing Plaintiffs’
back injuries, including being over-weight, smoking, and truck
driving. However, the significant number and characteristic
7
distribution of injuries pointed to hauler driving as the single
risk factor resulting in the “fingerprint” injuries which showed up
in Aprill’s study.
Dr. Samaratunga, the plaintiffs’ treating neurosurgeon, relied
partially on Aprill’s MRI study for his conclusion that the
endplate fractures were caused by whole body vibrations. Dr.
Bunch, a physical therapist and ergonomics expert, testified that
he had performed an ergonomic assessment of the coal haulers and
concluded that the coal haulers contributed to the plaintiffs’
injuries.
The district court, after reviewing the curriculum vitae of
Dr. Aprill, Dr. Samaratunga and Dr. Bunch, found that each of these
witnesses met the requirements of Rule 702 for designation as
expert witnesses in this matter. In addition to the doctors’
credentials, the court noted that there is a body of literature
dealing with repetitive trauma back injuries, the doctors’ theories
can be tested, and that the methodology that the doctors used
derived from other accepted methodologies. Based on these facts,
the district court determined that the testimony was reliable under
the standards set forth in Daubert.
Euclid attacks the district court’s finding that these
causation experts provided reliable testimony. First, Euclid
contends that the “mere existence” of a body of literature on a
given subject does not speak to the question of reliability.
8
Second, they point out that the qualifications and professional
stature of a witness, standing alone, do not evidence reliability.
Third, they complain that the district court’s conclusion that the
experts’ theories are “derived from methodology which relates to
other accepted methodologies” is not helpful in determining
reliability. Finally, they list those Daubert factors which do not
point to reliability in this case: the potential rate of error in
the causation witnesses’ work was not established, the “general
acceptance” of their conclusions was not established, and Dr.
Samaratunga was allowed to testify concerning causation, when his
area of expertise was established as treatment of back pain, not
etiology.
Given the broad discretion vested in trial courts to “keep the
gate” for the purpose of admitting or excluding opinion testimony,
we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in this
case. See Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir.
1998)(en banc). Euclid asserts that each factor, standing alone,
may not have been enough to support the admission of opinion
testimony. However, the district court considered the Daubert
factors in the aggregate, and determined that, on balance, the
experts’ opinions were sufficiently reliable to merit admission
into evidence and testing in the fire of cross examination and
contrary evidence. We find that the district court did not abuse
its broad discretion in that exercise. See General Electric Co. v.
9
Joiner, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 512, 517 (1997); see also Moore v.
Ashland Chemical, Inc., ___ F.3d___ (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc).
c. Liability experts
Although Euclid generally complains of the admission of
testimony by liability experts McDonald and Chaseling, the only
basis for the challenge advanced on appeal concerns the manner by
which Chaseling measured the vibration levels in the coal haulers.
Euclid contends on appeal, as it did at trial, that it was
inappropriate for Chaseling to measure the vibrations in the coal
haulers by attaching an accelerometer to the metal frame below the
seat. Chasling responded to that contention, testifying that,
pursuant to International Standards Organization (“ISO”) standards,
it is permissible to measure the vibrations from the frame rather
than from the seat as long as the transmission characteristics of
the seat cushion are taken into account when calculating the actual
vibration. Chasling testified further that he believed that
measuring the vibration from the frame gave better comparable
results from truck to truck because the condition of the seating
material varies widely.
Euclid also complains that Chaseling turned on the
accelerometer in 16-second bursts only when told to do so by people
who were suing Euclid, gathering less than seven minutes of
vibration data over a fifteen hour span of time, which resulted in
vibration data that was unreliable. Chaseling explained during his
10
testimony that he was attempting to record vibration measurements
when the hauler was in a loping mode. For this he relied on the
input of the hauler drivers to advise him when they felt the
machine phase into that mode.
The district court noted that, “[a]s a general rule, questions
relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the
weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility
and should be left for the jury’s consideration.” Viterbo v. Dow
Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 1987). The question for
the district court was whether the “analytical gap” between the
causation opinion offered by the expert and the scientific
knowledge and available data advanced to support that opinion is
too wide. Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc., F.3d (5th Cir.
1998). Here the district court determined that it was not.
[T]hese witnesses’ theories can be tested, their
qualifications are adequate, literature exists dealing
with common design principals and methodologies for
testing such designs, and the methods from which these
opinion were reached are related to other methodologies
and theories in the area of engineering safety and
design. In the Court’s opinion, these factors render
this evidence reliable under Daubert.
Memorandum Opinion and Order, January 2, 1997, at 6. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the expert testimony offered by Chaseling and McDonald was
reliable and relevant and therefore admissible, and that it was
within the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of that
evidence in light of Euclid’s criticism that Chasling’s methods for
11
testing vibration levels yielded inaccurate results.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Euclid moved for judgment as a matter of law based on the
insufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiffs’ products
liability and negligence claims. The district court denied the
motion. We review that ruling de novo, applying the same standards
employed by the district court. See Gutierrez v. Excel Corp., 106
F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 1997). “All evidence with all reasonable
inferences must be considered in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Id. Judgment as a matter of law should have
been granted if there was “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis
for a reasonable jury to find for” the plaintiffs on issues they
bore the burden of proving. FED.R.CIV.P. 50(a).
The jury found that the preponderance of the evidence5
established that there were design and marketing defects in the
coal haulers at the time they left the possession of Euclid that
were a producing cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The jury also
found that the preponderance of the evidence established that
negligence by both Euclid and the plaintiffs proximately caused the
injuries in question. On appeal, Euclid challenges the sufficiency
5
The district court instructed the jury that all claims in this
case must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, which
“means evidence that persuades you that the plaintiffs’ claims are
more likely true than not true.” Charge to the Jury, at 11.
Neither party challenges the district court’s articulation of the
applicable burden of proof.
12
of the evidence as to design defects, marketing defects, Euclid’s
negligence and causation.
a. Strict liability design defect
In determining whether a product is defectively designed, “the
jury must conclude that the product is unreasonably dangerous as
designed, taking into consideration the utility of the product and
the risk involved in its use.” American Tobacco Co., Inc. v.
Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 432 (Tex. 1997). Liability for a design
defect may attach even if the defect is obvious or apparent.
Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 850 (Tex. 1979).
Whether a product has a design defect is evaluated in the light of
economic and scientific feasibility of safer alternatives.
Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 756 (Tex.
1980).
We find no merit in Euclid’s argument that the evidence is not
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict because plaintiffs’
experts did not use the words “unreasonably dangerous.” Although
an expert may testify to an ultimate issue, such testimony is not
required to support the jury’s verdict. See FED.R.EVID. 704(a).
Rather, we must look to all the evidence, drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiffs in evaluating the sufficiency
of the evidence. See Crosthwait Equipment Co., Inc. v. John Deere
Co., 992 F.2d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 1993).
Chasling testified that the vibration of the hauler violated
13
the health and safety thresholds of International Safety
Organization (“ISO”) Standard 2631.6 Under that standard, the
hauler drivers should not be exposed to vibrations in excess of
established levels for more than 1.6 hours in a 24 hour period.
The plaintiffs were routinely exposed to vibrations in excess of
ISO standards for a majority of their 8 to 12 hour shifts. It was
not simply the intensity of the vibrations but the vector of forces
caused by a combination of vertical and longitudinal vibrations
that produced injury. Evidence supports a determination that the
“geometry” of the short-nose haulers, i.e. the shorter wheel base
and placement of the engine, caused the vibrations. Those
vibrations were exacerbated by the substitution of rubber struts
for the steel springs which had been used in the long-nose haulers.
The evidence identified Euclid’s own long-nose hauler as a safe,
feasible alternative from both an engineering and economic
perspective. Euclid focuses on evidence that the short-nose design
was a response to user demand for better maneuverability and
visibility, arguing that such demand made the older design obsolete
and therefore non-feasible. While Euclid’s line of reasoning was
6
Euclid points out that the ISO standards are not laws nor
regulations, but are voluntary consensus standards for evaluation.
Therefore, they contend, without specifically challenging the
admission of evidence concerning ISO standards, that their failure
to comply with the standards is not relevant to the issues in this
case. However, evidence concerning ISO standards was before the
jury, and we conclude that such evidence was relevant and the jury
was free to assign whatever weight to the evidence that they
determined was appropriate.
14
certainly relevant, this court is not empowered to sit as a super
jury, substituting its view for the jury’s assessment of the weight
and credibility to assign to the conflicting feasibility evidence.
See Gutierrez v. Excel Corp., 106 F.3d 683, 687 (5th Cir. 1997).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence before the
jury was sufficient to support its conclusion that the short-nosed
coal haulers are unreasonably dangerous as designed.
b. Negligence: marketing defect, failure to warn.
Euclid challenges on appeal the jury’s determination that
there was a defect in the marketing of the coal haulers at the time
these products left the possession of Euclid.
Under Texas law, negligence consists of four essential
elements: (1) a legal duty owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant;
(2) a breach of that duty; (3) an actual injury to the Plaintiff;
and (4) a showing that the breach was a proximate cause of the
injury. See Williams v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 804 S.W.2d
132, 138 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). While
strict liability focuses on the condition of the product,
negligence looks at the acts of the manufacturer and determines if
it exercised ordinary care in designing and producing its product.
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 437 (Tex.
1997).
A product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in
marketing. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379, 382
15
(Tex. 1995). A defendant’s failure to warn of a product’s
potential dangers when warnings are required is a type of marketing
defect. See id. A manufacturer has a duty to warn if it knows or
should know of the potential harm to a user because of the nature
of its product. See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951
S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997). Euclid contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the short-nosed
haulers were unreasonably dangerous and that Euclid knew or should
have known of a potential harm to users because of the nature of
its product. Euclid does not dispute that it failed to warn
plaintiffs of unreasonably dangerous characteristics of its short-
nose haulers.
A manufacturer has a duty to test and inspect his product to
uncover scientifically discoverable dangers before the product is
sold. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.2d 551,
562 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.], 1996, writ granted). A product
must not be made available to the public without disclosure of
those dangers that the application of reasonable foresight would
reveal. See id. There is evidence in the record that Euclid never
ride-tested the short-nosed hauler before placing it on the market.
In 1978, after an Australian purchaser complained about the rough
ride of its short-nosed hauler, Euclid performed some ride tests
specifically on the Australian hauler and found the ride to be
unacceptable. However, the short-nosed haulers were still not
16
tested by Euclid in accordance with ISO procedures or otherwise,
even though Euclid’s chief engineer admitted that he was aware of
the ISO procedures for whole body vibration testing. Euclid made
no design changes in response to the reports made after the
Australian testing, and even canceled its Ride Improvement Program.
Further, there was evidence that Euclid knew or should have
known that three people sustained injuries caused by the rough ride
of the short-nosed hauler sold to the Australian mine. Euclid took
the position that the complaints were limited to one machine in
Australia. The district court admitted into evidence a letter
which had been sent to Morgan Equipment, an authorized Euclid
dealer, which referenced “3 recent injuries (1 compensatable)
claimed to be caused by the rough ride of” the Euclid short-nosed
hauler. The letter also references “representations by the union
on driver discomfort....” Euclid contends that this is not
evidence of Euclid’s negligence because there is no evidence that
anyone at Euclid saw the letter and because it is not clear that
the injuries referred to in the letter were same type injuries
experienced by plaintiffs in this case. Euclid acknowledges that
they were aware that the Australian short-nosed hauler had an
unacceptably rough ride7, but points to evidence that the
7
John Stoneman, the managing director of Morgan Equipment
Company, the Euclid dealer that sold the short-nosed hauler to the
Australian mine, testified concerning the lengthy history of
attempts by both Morgan and Euclid to determine the cause of and to
remedy the ride problems in the Australian hauler.
17
Australian hauler was a “lemon,” and that it was specially modified
to the customer’s specifications, operated on rougher roads, and
that these differences between the Australian hauler and the Texas
haulers excused Euclid from warning the Texas buyers about the
Australia rough ride problems.
The trial record contains evidence upon which a rational jury
could base a rejection of Euclid’s position. Euclid entered into
a contract with Battelle Laboratories in February 1978, later
expanded in May 1978, under which Euclid would pay $17,500 to
Battelle to solve the “ride problem” in its short-nosed haulers.
Euclid also initiated a Ride Improvement Program during 1978, which
was later discontinued. These efforts, combined with the letter
and the failure to test the equipment prior to marketing is
sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Euclid knew or
should have known of the potential harm to users because of the
rough ride problems of the short-nosed haulers.
c. Causation
Causation is an element of both the plaintiffs’ strict
products liability claims and their negligence claims. See Union
Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995). Strict
liability requires proof of a producing cause, while proximate
cause is the test in negligence actions. See General Motors Corp.
v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. 1993).
A producing cause is an “exciting or contributing cause which
18
in the natural sequence, produced the injuries or damages
complained of.” Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd., 896 S.W.2d
179, 181 (Tex. 1995).
Proximate cause, on the other hand, consists of both cause in
fact and foreseeability. See Union Pump Co. v. Albritton, 898
S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995). Cause in fact means that a
defendant’s acts or omissions were a substantial factor in bringing
about a plaintiff’s injury. Id. Foreseeability is satisfied by
showing that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence,
should have anticipated the danger to others by his negligent act.
See McClure v. Allied Stores of Tex., Inc., 608 S.W.2d 901, 903
(Tex. 1980). Foreseeability does not require the actor to
anticipate the particular accident, but only that he reasonably
anticipate the general character of the injury. See El Chico Corp.
v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 313 (Tex. 1987).8
There need not be direct proof of causation. The jury may
infer proximate cause from the surrounding circumstances. See
Mosley v. Excel Corp., 109 F.3d 1006, 1009 (5th Cir. 1997). If a
negligent act actively aids in producing an injury, it need not be
the sole cause, but it must be a concurring cause, and such as
might reasonably have been contemplated as contributing to the
8
Producing cause requires a lesser burden than proximate cause
because it does not require foreseeability. Purina Mills, Inc. v.
Odell, 948 S.W.2d 927, 935 (Tex.Civ.App. - Texarkana 1997, writ
denied).
19
result. See McClure, 608 S.W.2d at 904. However, causation “must
be established by probative evidence, not by mere conjecture or
guess.” Gutierrez v. Excel Corp., 106 F.3d 683, 687 (5th Cir.
1997).
The question for this court is whether there was sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ back
injuries were, more likely than not, caused by driving Euclid’s
coal haulers. Of course, there is not a precise fit between
science and the applicable legal burdens of proof. However, when
the incidence of a disease or injury is sufficiently elevated due
to exposure to a purported source of injury, a plaintiff can raise
a fact question on causation by presenting evidence that he was
exposed to that substance and exhibits the disease or injury. See
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997),
citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320 n.
13 (9th Cir. 1995)(on remand). The question remains what quantum
of elevation is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence
burden of proof. The Texas Supreme Court seemingly answered this
question, holding that epidemiological evidence should show that
the risk of an injury or condition in the exposed population was
more than double the risk in the unexposed or control population.
Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 716. However, an intermediate Texas
appellate court subsequently addressing the Havner opinion takes
the position that Havner did not “set any strict rules regarding
20
what types of evidence would be sufficient or not sufficient to
support a finding of causation.” Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co. v. Atterbury, ___ S.W.2d ___, ___ (Tex.App. --
Texarkana 1998)(1998 WL 436916 at *15). There is no requirement
that a party must have reliable epidemiological evidence of a
relative risk of 2.0 or greater. Id. Reliable evidence of
relative risk less than 2.0 can be considered, but must be
supported by other credible, reliable evidence of causation. Id.
Further, epidemiological evidence with a relative risk of 2.0 or
greater does not automatically pass a sufficiency review. Id.
Assuming, without deciding, that Havner’s rule controls,9 the
evidence before the jury more than satisfies the relative risk of
2.0 standard. According to Aprill’s testimony, the plaintiffs’
condition is revealed in their MRIs as a “fingerprint” of a
characteristic number and distribution of end plate fractures which
is essentially unique to hauler drivers. While 68% of the control
9
Havner amounts to the Texas Supreme Court’s definition of “more
likely than not burden of proof.” See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 717.
Arguably, the definition of the applicable burden of proof is
procedural rather than substantive, and therefore controlled by
federal rather than state law. See Gasperini v. Center for
Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 426 (1996)(noting that
classification of a law as “substantive” or “procedural” is
“sometimes a challenging endeavor.”) The Fifth Circuit has not
weighed in on the question of whether evidence must show more than
doubling of the risk to support a jury’s finding of causation. The
federal circuits which have considered the question have reached
diverse results. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 716 (listing cases
demonstrating the split). The parties neither briefed nor argued
the issue, and it is not outcome determinative in this case.
Therefore, we decline to reach it.
21
group exhibited some evidence of end plate fractures, none of those
individuals exhibited the characteristic injuries found in 90% of
hauler drivers, that is, a pattern of back pathology discernable
from the number, severity and distribution of end plate fractures.
While the test formulated in Havner, if applicable, requires
incidence of “fingerprint” conditions in the hauler driver
population double that of the control group, the evidence
established that the fingerprint condition found in 90% of the
hauler drivers existed in 0% of the control population. Aprill
additionally testified that, on average, the hauler drivers had
twice as many end plate fractures as the control group. Aprill
explained to the jury that end plate fractures are caused by
vertical compression stress on the spine. If a person falls and
lands hard on his buttocks, this may cause an individual end plate
to crack. Such injuries appear most often at the top of the lumbar
spine. However, long-term exposure to whole body vibration causes
multiple end plate fractures throughout the spine. The control
group exhibited the former pattern of end plate fractures, while
the hauler drivers exhibited the latter. This evidence is
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the issue of causation
under the Havner standard.
V. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
a. The Texas Discovery Rule
In Texas, a personal injury action must be filed “not later
22
than two years after the day the cause of action accrues . . . .”
TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 16.003(a). Generally, accrual occurs on
the date the plaintiff first becomes entitled to sue the defendant
based upon a legal wrong, even if the plaintiff is unaware of the
injury. Zidell v. Bird, 692 S.W.2d 550, 554 (Tex. App.--Austin,
1985, no writ).
The “discovery rule” is an exception to this general rule.
See Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex. 1990).
Under the Texas discovery rule, the accrual of a cause of action is
deferred in cases in which the alleged wrongful act and resulting
injury were inherently undiscoverable at the time they occurred but
may be objectively verified. See S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 6
(Tex. 1996).
Euclid asserted at trial that the statute of limitations
barred the Plaintiffs’ claims and the issue was submitted to the
jury. The jury found that Plaintiffs failed to file their lawsuits
within two years of the date they first suffered injury. The jury
made an additional findings that 1) the plaintiffs filed their
lawsuits within two years of the date they first knew, or in the
exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that their
injuries were caused by driving the coal haulers; 2) plaintiffs’
injuries were inherently undiscoverable; and 3) plaintiffs’
injuries were objectively verifiable.
b. Standard of Review
23
On appeal, Euclid challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the jury’s finding regarding the inherently
undiscoverable and objectively verifiable nature of the injuries.
Like the sufficiency of the evidence issues on liability, we review
this ground of error by considering all evidence, drawing all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Gutierrez v. Excel Corp., 106 F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir.
1997). We will reverse the denial of Euclid’s motion for judgment
as a matter of law if there was not substantial evidence “such that
reasonable jurors might reach different conclusions...” Id. at
686-87.
c. Inherently undiscoverable injuries
An injury is “inherently undiscoverable” if it is by nature
unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period
despite due diligence. S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d at 7. Euclid
argues that because Plaintiffs were aware of a painful “back-
slapping” sensation while driving the coal haulers, their injuries
were immediately “discoverable.” Plaintiffs counter that, in spite
of the uncomfortable ride, they had no reason to suspect the
insidious damage that was occurring within their spines. We
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
“inherently undiscoverable” finding. Repetitive trauma injuries
like those at issue in this case are not readily susceptible to
discovery at the time of a particular, individual contact. Rather,
24
the fractured endplates throughout the plaintiffs’ spines which
were discovered later, were “unexpected latent injur[ies] which
were unknown and unknowable at the time of the traumatic event.”
See Albertson v. T.J.Stevenson & Co., Inc., 749 F.2d 223, 233 (5th
Cir. 1984).
d. Objectively verifiable injuries
Euclid contends that there is not legally sufficient evidence
to support the jury’s determination that the Plaintiff’s injuries
were objectively verifiable. Euclid relies on language from the
Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.
1996): “For the purpose of applying the discovery rule, expert
testimony on subjects about which there is no settled scientific
view . . . cannot provide objective verification of [alleged wrong
and injury.]” Id. at 18. S.V. held that expert opinion regarding
recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse could not meet the
objective verifiability element for the Texas discovery rule. The
court noted the lack of consensus in the scientific community
concerning the reliability of recovered memory, id. at 17-18, but
noted that expert opinion coupled with other evidence could provide
the kind of verification required. Id. at 16.
Here, the jury heard evidence that plaintiffs suffered
herniated intervertebral discs and degenerated spines, confirmed by
recognized diagnostic testing. We hold that such evidence, which
came in the form of testimony from medical experts, relying on long
25
accepted methods of reading and interpreting MRIs, is sufficient to
support the jury’s affirmative answer on the “objectively
verifiable” nature of the injuries.
e. Limitation bar as to Appellee Humber
Euclid devotes a single sentence to its contention that a
unique limitations argument bars the claim of Tim Humber because a
doctor told him more that two years before he filed suit that
repetitious trauma had compromised his back. However, the jury
heard evidence that Humber’s doctor had actually diagnosed a
herniated disc and it was TUMCO that advised him to claim his
injury was due to repetitive trauma disease so that an injury date
could be established for workers’ compensation purposes. Such
evidence does not preclude a reasonable jury from finding that
Humber discovered that he suffered a repetitive trauma injury less
than two years before he filed suit or that his injury resulted
from driving the coal haulers.
VI. PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY10
The district court reduced the award of damages to Plaintiffs
as a consequence of the jury’s findings concerning Plaintiffs’
10
This issue is referred to in the record and in much of the
precedential jurisprudence as “contributory negligence” or
“comparative responsibility.” Texas law was modified in 1995 to
its present form which refers to the same concept as “Proportionate
Responsibility.” See TEX.CIV.PRAC.& REM. CODE ANN., Ch.33.
26
proportionate responsibility for their injuries.11 A take nothing
judgment was entered as to Rucker because his proportionate
responsibility was found to be 70%. Plaintiffs filed a cross-
appeal, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support the
jury’s findings regarding their proportionate responsibility for
their injuries and that they should have been granted a judgment as
a matter of law on that issue.
a. Was the issue preserved for appellate review?
Initially, we must determine whether Plaintiffs preserved the
right to appeal the jury’s proportionate responsibility findings.
Euclid contends that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the
requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 50, thus precluding our review of the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict on this
issue. Generally, sufficiency of the evidence is not reviewable on
appeal unless a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law
was made in the trial court at the conclusion of all the evidence.
11
Question No. 4. For each person or product found by you to
have caused the injury, find the percentage caused by...
b. Chris Luker 30
Euclid, Inc. 70...
c. Mike Rucker 70
Euclid, Inc. 30...
d. Walter Henry 50
Euclid, Inc. 50...
e. Tim Humber 40
Euclid, Inc. 60....
27
See McCann v. Texas City Refining, Inc., 984 F.2d 667, 671 (5th
Cir. 1993). However, strict compliance with Rule 50 is not
necessary so long as the purposes of the requirement have been
satisfied. Greenwood v. Societe Francaise De, 111 F.3d 1239, 1244-
45 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 558 (1997). “These
purposes are met when the court and the [opposing party] are
alerted to the grounds on which the [complaining party] contends
the evidence is insufficient prior to the submission of the case to
the jury.” Id. at 1245.
In this case, the evidence closed shortly before noon on
Thursday, January 30, 1997. The trial court then considered
Euclid’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and began work on
the jury charge. After 6:00 p.m. the following day, after
completing what the court termed its “informal charge conference”
the court allowed the parties to go on the record with “comments,
requested instructions, and objections.” At that time, Plaintiffs
objected orally, on the record, to the submission of contributory
negligence to the jury on the ground that there was not legally
sufficient evidence to support the submission of the evidence to
the jury. The court overruled the objection. After the verdict
was returned, Plaintiffs filed a “renewed” motion for judgment as
a matter of law addressing the sufficiency of the evidence of
contributory negligence.
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs failed to file a formal,
28
written, pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.
However, we find that Plaintiffs’ objection to the jury charge on
sufficiency of the evidence grounds served as the functional
equivalent of a formal pre-verdict motion. See Greenwood, 111 F.3d
at 1245, n.7 & 8; see also Wells v. Hico ISD, 736 F.2d 243, 251-52
(5th Cir. 1984). The issue of sufficiency of the evidence on
plaintiffs’ proportionate responsibility is thus preserved for
appellate review.
b. Sufficiency of the evidence on proportionate responsibility
Plaintiffs contend that there is no evidence that any of the
Plaintiffs had an awareness of the cumulative trauma they were
suffering as a result of their exposure to Euclid’s coal haulers.
Nor, they argue, is there any evidence in the record to indicate
that any of the Plaintiffs should have had knowledge of the
dangerous and unsafe nature of the vibration levels they were
receiving while driving the coal haulers.
Euclid answers that the evidence supports findings that
Plaintiffs were negligent and at least partially responsible for
their alleged physical injuries and damages. Euclid points to
evidence that the coal hauler, like any other vehicle, had a
rougher ride when road conditions were bad and the driver was
driving too fast. The record contains evidence that there was no
reason for driving the haulers at top speed and in fact TUMCO
management wanted its drivers to slow down. Further, there was
29
evidence that Rucker continued to smoke, though doctors had told
him smoking aggravates his back injury.
Given evidence that the Plaintiffs knew the vibrations
worsened based on the speed the haulers were driven and that the
drivers drove the haulers faster than their employer recommended,
we find sufficient evidence to support the proportional negligence
findings of the jury. Further, the evidence is sufficient to
sustain the jury’s finding that Rucker was responsible for 70% of
the negligence that resulted in his injuries, thereby precluding
any obligation for Euclid to compensate him for his damages.
VII. JURY CHARGE
a. Euclid’s challenge to the jury charge on the issue of causation
Concerning the causation element of Plaintiffs’ negligence
cause of action, the district court instructed the jury that
“[P]roximate cause” means that cause which in a natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and
independent cause, produces an event without which that
event would not have occurred, and which event or some
similar event should have been foreseen by a person in
the exercise of ordinary care under the same or similar
circumstances . . . .
The district court separately defined the causation element of
the Plaintiffs’ products liability cause of action:
“[P]roducing cause” as used in these instructions, means
an efficient, exciting, or contributing cause, which in
a natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury in
question . . . .
Euclid complains that the district court did not accept its
proposed jury instruction that in order to impose liability on
30
negligence or products liability claims, the jury must determine
that Euclid’s conduct was a substantial factor and a “but for”
cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, citing Texarkana Memorial Hosp.,
Inc. v. Murdock, 946 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1997) and Gutierrez v. Excel
Corp., 106 F.3d 683, 687 (5th Cir. 1997).
This court has stated the standard of review for jury charge
challenges:
First, the challenges must demonstrate that the charge as
a whole creates substantial and ineradicable doubt
whether the jury has been properly guided in its
deliberations. Second, even if the jury instructions
were erroneous, we will not reverse if we determine,
based upon the entire record, that the challenged
instruction could not have affected the outcome of the
case. If the party wishes to complain on appeal of the
district court’s refusal to give a proffered instruction,
that party must show as a threshold matter that the
proposed instruction correctly stated the law.
Flores v. Cameron County, Tex., 92 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir.
1996)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Euclid complains that the jury charge did not adequately
inform the jury that because the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs
do not arise from any discrete event, the plaintiffs bear the
burden of showing that the defect or negligence actually caused the
injuries. We are not convinced that the charge as a whole, which
employed language identical to the definitions provided in the
Texas Pattern Jury Charges, creates substantial and ineradicable
doubt whether the jury has been properly guided in its
deliberations. We therefore will not disturb the verdict based on
31
Euclid’s challenge to the jury instructions on causation.
b. Rucker’s challenge to the jury charge
Rucker contends on cross-appeal that the district court abused
its discretion by refusing to grant his request that the jury be
instructed on the effect of its answers regarding proportional
responsibility. Unlike Texas state courts, federal courts are free
to tell juries the effect of their answers. See Martin v. Texaco,
Inc., 726 F.2d 207, 216 (5th Cir. 1985). The decision whether to
instruct the jury on the effects of its answers is “a matter of
discretion for the trial court.” Martin v. Texaco, Inc., 726 F.2d
207, 216 (5th Cir. 1984).
Rucker further complains that the trial court refused his
requested special instruction that “a plaintiff’s negligence, if
any, in merely failing to discover a product defect or guard
against the possibility of its existence cannot form the basis of
an affirmative finding against a plaintiff on the issue of
negligence.” Rucker takes the position that the omission of these
two instructions led to an incomplete and erroneous charge on
Euclid’s proportionate responsibility defense and affected the
outcome of Rucker’s case. Rucker alleges that, taken together,
these two jury charge decisions by the district court amounted to
error in the jury instructions that prejudiced the outcome of the
case. See Aero Int’l, Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 713
F.2d 1106, 1113 (5th Cir. 1983).
32
In Perricone v. Kansas City Southern Rwy. Co., 704 F.2d 1376
(5th Cir. 1983), the district court gave a supplemental instruction
which informed the jury that the Plaintiff would not recover any
damages if the Plaintiff was found to be more than 50% negligent.
This Court affirmed the giving of the supplemental instruction in
the absence of contemporaneous objection. Id. at 1377. However,
Perricone does not mandate the giving of such instructions. We
find that the failure of the district court to instruct the jury on
the effect of its answers concerning the Plaintiffs’ proportionate
responsibility in this case does not call into question the jury’s
factual determination that Plaintiffs were negligence and that
their negligence was a producing cause of their injuries.
In a strict liability cause of action, a plaintiff’s failure
to discover or guard against a product’s defect is not a defense to
a defendant’s liability. See Keen v. Ashot Ashkelon, 748 S.W.2d 91
(Tex. 1988). Therefore, Rucker’s requested charge was a correct
statement of the law in that regard. However, we are not left with
substantial or eradicable doubt that the jury was properly guided
in its deliberations. See Flores, 92 F.3d at 262. Both Plaintiffs
and Euclid developed through evidence and argument before the jury
their theories concerning proportionate responsibility of the
Plaintiffs. We will not reverse the verdict because, based on the
entire record, we do not conclude that the requested instructions
would have affected the outcome of the case. Id.
33
VIII. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
34
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The plaintiffs in this case did not
produce evidence that sufficiently demonstrates a causative link
between their alleged injuries and Euclid’s short-nose coal
haulers. The district court abused its discretion by lowering the
Daubert standard for admitting expert opinion testimony which was
neither relevant nor reliable. Finally, this case should have been
dismissed as time-barred because the plaintiffs’ claims of injury,
based on one doctor’s subjective evaluation of MRIs, are not
objectively verifiable as required under Texas case law governing
the tolling of the statute of limitations pursuant to the discovery
rule.
I.
Euclid, Inc., designs and manufactures 120-ton coal-hauling
vehicles used at open pit coal mines. Before the mid-1970s, Euclid
used a “long-nose” design. Like a pick-up truck, this design put
the engine at the front, with the cab above and behind. Then,
responding to consumer demands for greater driver visibility and
maneuverability, Euclid and its competitors switched to “short-
nose” designs. The new designs placed the driver in front, with
the engine below and behind. This gives the front of the vehicle
35
a flat, snub-nosed appearance. Euclid’s design changes included
other modifications, including a shorter wheel base, a trailing arm
suspension, and rubber struts instead of steel springs.
When the short-nosed design was introduced in the mid-1970s,
Euclid sold several vehicles to Texas Utilities Mining Company
(TUMCO). The five original plaintiffs in this case, males ranging
in age from 32 to 46, are former TUMCO employees. They all
operated the Euclid 322 NDT short-nose coal hauler. In addition,
the plaintiffs also operated other heavy machinery in the coal pit,
including bulldozers, scrapers, water trucks, and end-dump trucks.
The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered back injuries
which resulted from “repetitious trauma and severe vibrations”
experienced while operating the Euclid short-nose coal hauler.
They sued Euclid, claiming that their back conditions were due to
the Euclid short-nose coal hauler’s defective design, which
rendered the product unreasonably dangerous (the strict products
liability claim), and Euclid’s negligent design, marketing, and
failure to warn customers and operators about safety risks
pertaining to the short-nose coal hauler (negligence and gross
negligence claims). Their suit was filed in the Eastern District
of Texas, Marshall Division.
The sufficiency and admissibility of the testimony offered by
the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses lies at the heart of the
controversy in this appeal. The plaintiffs’ five testifying
-36-
36
experts have been divided by the panel majority into two categories
-- two engineer “liability” experts who testified about the short-
nose coal hauler and three medical “causation” experts who
testified about the plaintiffs’ injuries. Euclid sought summary
judgment based on its contention that the plaintiffs’ proposed
expert testimony, necessary to establish causation and liability,
could not be admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786
(1993). Euclid’s Daubert argument was rejected by the district
court, but a continuing objection to identified expert testimony
was permitted. Euclid also raised a limitations defense, but the
district court determined that the discovery rule would apply.
Ultimately, a jury rendered a $2.8 million verdict against
Euclid. Euclid moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the
question of liability, all plaintiffs sought JMOL on Euclid’s
contributory negligence arguments, and plaintiff Tim Rucker, who
received a take-nothing judgment because of the jury’s
determination that he was 70% contributorily negligent, moved for
a new trial. These post-trial motions were denied. All parties
timely appealed.
II.
A detailed discussion of the expert testimony offered at trial
by the plaintiffs is necessary to the ensuing substantive
-37-
37
discussions. As previously mentioned, the experts fall into two
general categories -- engineers who testified about the design and
quality of ride of the short-nose coal hauler (“liability
experts”), and doctors who testified about the plaintiffs’ physical
condition (“causation experts”).
A.
The liability experts testified about Euclid’s coal haulers.
Mr. Geoff McDonald is an Australian engineer who had experience
with the Euclid short-nose coal hauler dating back to 1977.
Workers asked to operate a problematic Euclid short-nose coal
hauler at the Blackwater Mine in Australia refused to operate it
because its ride was so rough.12 Mr. McDonald was asked to test the
short-nose coal hauler at that time, and based on his testing in
Australia, he testified that the long-nose haulers are safer
because they are four to five times less likely to cause injury
than the short-nose haulers.
Mr. Arthur Chaseling is a consulting mechanical engineer who
also testified that he thought the long-nose design was safer. In
1996, Mr. Chaseling traveled with Mr. McDonald to Texas to test
TUMCO’s short-nose coal haulers. Mr. McDonald testified that the
12
Euclid vigorously contests the probity of conclusions based on
testing of a single hauler in Australia almost 20 years ago.
Euclid contends that the haulers sent to Australia were specially
modified to the customer’s specifications. The company has also
conceded that the hauler sent to Australia may have been a lemon.
-38-
38
mine operations and physical layout were similar to those at the
Blackwater mine. Messrs. Chaseling and McDonald together measured
the vibrations experienced by TUMCO’s employees who operated the
Euclid short-nose coal hauler. These tests were conducted by
attaching an accelerometer to the metal frame below the seat of a
Euclid coal hauler. Using these measurements, Mr. Chaseling
determined that the Euclid short-nose coal hauler’s vibrations
exceed the health and safety limits of the International Standards
Organization (ISO).13 Messrs. Chaseling and McDonald did not test
any of the other earth-moving equipment operated at the mine to
measure their vibrations, and they did not attempt any sort of
comparison between the short-nose coal hauler and the other
machines operated by the plaintiffs.
B.
The key causation expert was Dr. Charles N. Aprill, a medical
doctor specializing in diagnostic radiology. He performed MRIs on
the backs of approximately ninety TUMCO employees, including the
plaintiffs, who operated the Euclid short-nose coal hauler. These
employees also operated other heavy machinery such as scrapers,
bulldozers, water trucks, and end-dump trucks,14 but Dr. Aprill’s
13
The ISO standards are not binding on Euclid, and Euclid
contests the probity of using these standards.
14
Plaintiff Johnny W. Bartley testified:
[T]here were several jobs that a hauler operator would
-39-
39
tests did not indicate that he had considered the effect of, or
differentiated among the TUMCO employees based on, their length of
employment or the amount of time they spent operating particular
machines. He compared the results of these MRIs with a “control
group” of MRIs performed on a group of “consecutive patients who
were scanned roughly during the time these [TUMCO] patients were
scanned, who were referred because they had some sort of back
problem.” The control group patients were selected to be age- and
gender-matched to the test group of ninety TUMCO employees, but the
control group did not include anyone who operated coal haulers or
any other kind of earth-moving equipment.
Dr. Aprill found “endplate infractions” -- impact craters
which form in an intervertebral disc when a load is applied to it
-- in 90% of the TUMCO employees and in 68% of the “control group”
of other back pain patients being treated by Dr. Aprill. He also
found that while the endplate infractions occurring in the general
perform in hauler operator classification, of course, one
being operate the hauler, another being to run the crusher,
run the water truck and assorted pump duties, the
dewatering type job whereupon rains you would pump water
out of the pit to help dry it up. You were kind of a do-
all individual.
All the other plaintiffs except Mike R. Rucker testified that they
operated the same machines described by Mr. Bartley, as well as a
bulldozer. Mr. Rucker had only begun driving the coal hauler for
TUMCO in late 1990 or early 1991, and he testified that in addition
to the coal hauler he also operated the water truck, end-dump
truck, and a backhoe. During previous employment, Mr. Rucker had
been a manual laborer, had operated other heavy machinery, such as
a forklift, and had injured his back on the job.
-40-
40
back-pain population clustered between the lower dorsal spine and
the upper lumbar spine, the TUMCO employees exhibited endplate
infractions in that area as well as throughout the lumbar spine.
According to Dr. Aprill, these endplate infractions render one more
susceptible to back injury. Dr. Aprill concluded that the
“repeated vertical compression” experienced by the TUMCO employees
caused the endplate infractions.
On cross-examination, Dr. Aprill opined that for “the normal
population without any occupational stresses,” the incidence of
endplate infractions is “something in the order of forty percent or
so,” and that “any person that’s subjected to repetitive
compression, whatever the source, is likely to develop changes
similar to what we saw.” Dr. Aprill stated that he had not
compared the MRIs of the backs of short-nose coal hauler operators
to test results for the operators of any other type of coal hauler;
neither had he compared the MRIs of short-nose coal hauler
operators to those of workers who operated bulldozers, end-dump
trucks, scrapers, water trucks, or tractors. He further stated
that he could not testify about the effect of operating those kinds
of heavy equipment because he had “not seen MRI scans on large
numbers of other heavy equipment operators.” When challenged about
his conclusions that the plaintiffs’ endplate infractions were
caused by the vibrations of the Euclid short-nose coal hauler, Dr.
Aprill conceded that he could not point to any study which might
indicate how much vibration was necessary to produce the injuries
-41-
41
he identified. His method and findings had not been reviewed by a
statistician or an epidemiologist or submitted for peer review and
publication, and no rate of error had been calculated for his
theory. Furthermore, he had not conducted any prior research or
studies -- nor had he submitted any papers or published any
articles -- on vibration and its effects on the back.
Dr. Richard W. Bunch is a ergonomics consultant and physical
therapist who rode in a Euclid short-nose coal hauler. Dr. Bunch
used a pen and a pad of paper to keep track of the jerks and jolts
that he felt during the ride. Based on his conclusions from this
“semi-objective” field experiment, he testified that the vibrations
experienced by the plaintiffs when they operated the Euclid short-
nose coal hauler contributed to their injuries and that the design
of the cab was not sufficient to protect the operator from the
vibrations. Dr. Bunch’s test was not subjected to peer review.
Dr. Kelvin A. Samaratunga is a neurosurgeon and a clinician
who evaluates and treats back pain. He reviewed all of the
previously described expert testimony, and he rode on a Euclid
short-nose coal hauler. In particular, he reviewed the plaintiffs’
medical records and MRIs. He testified that he agreed with Dr.
Aprill that the endplate infractions were the result of whole body
vibration, and that they would eventually lead to back problems for
the plaintiffs. On cross-examination, Dr. Samaratunga conceded
that he was not an expert on vibration and he had not performed any
studies or published any materials in that field of study. He is
-42-
42
not an epidemiologist or a statistician either. When asked, Dr.
Samaratunga indicated that he could not identify any published
study which indicated that the levels of vibration measured in the
short-nose coal haulers could cause the injuries of which the
plaintiffs complained. The materials reviewed by Dr. Samaratunga
did not address the effect, if any, of the other equipment operated
in the mines by the plaintiffs.
III.
Euclid unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law
based on the insufficiency of the evidence to establish a causative
link between the plaintiffs’ injuries and their operation of the
Euclid short-nose coal hauler. De novo review applies, with
inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See Gutierrez v.
Excel Corp., 106 F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 1997).
A.
Texas law provides the substantive rule of what the plaintiffs
were required to establish in order to prove Euclid’s liability.
The landmark decision of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 58 S. Ct. 817 (1938), established that “[e]xcept in matters
governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the
law to be applied in any case is the law of the State.” 304 U.S.
at 78, 58 S. Ct. at 822. Generally speaking, federal courts
-43-
43
sitting in diversity apply the substantive law of the state
providing the law of decision, while following federal procedural
law. See, e.g., Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S.
415, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 2219 (1996). When the difference between
applying state law and federal law is outcome-determinative, that
factor is a strong indicator that the federal court should apply
state law. See id. at 426-28, 116 S. Ct. at 2219-20; Guaranty
Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S. Ct. 1464 (1945). The test of
outcome determination cannot, however, be applied mechanically; a
federal court must instead be guided by “the twin aims of the Erie
rule: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable
administration of the laws.” Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 428, 116 S.
Ct. at 2220 (quoting Hanna v. Plummer, 380 U.S. 460, 468, 85 S. Ct.
1136, 1142 (1965)).
Consistent with these principles, it is well established that
in diversity cases, state law determines the quality and quantum of
evidence that must be produced to establish a cause of action,
while the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to
sustain a jury verdict on appeal is indisputably governed by a
federal standard. See, e.g., Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 870
F.2d 982, 986 (5th Cir. 1989); Tutor v. Ranger Ins. Co., 804 F.2d
1395, 1398 (5th Cir. 1986); Ayers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d
1173, 1175 (5th Cir. 1986); McCandless v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 779
F.2d 220, 223 (5th Cir. 1985); Fairley v. American Hoist & Derrick
-44-
44
Co., 640 F.2d 679, 681 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). Federal law thus
mandates that we review the jury’s verdict by the same standard as
the district court, affirming unless “there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find” as the
jury did. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); see Denton v. Morgan, 136 F.3d
1038, 1044 (5th Cir. 1998). The Erie doctrine, however, mandates
that the object of this inquiry be whether the evidence adduced by
the plaintiffs adequately establishes a prima facie case according
to the laws of the state of Texas, such that the jury verdict may
be approved.
This result is necessary both to discourage forum-shopping and
to ensure the equitable administration of the laws. Were we to
apply some lower standard -- essentially lowering the burden of
proof -- products liability and negligence plaintiffs would have a
considerable incentive to file suit in federal court rather than in
state court because it would be easier for them to win a case.
That is precisely what the Erie doctrine seeks to prevent. In this
case, we must therefore consider whether the plaintiffs have
proved, as a matter of Texas law, that their injuries were caused
by the Euclid short-nose coal hauler.
B.
Under Texas law, causation in fact is an element of the both
the plaintiffs’ strict products liability claims and their
-45-
45
negligence claims. See, e.g., Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898
S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995).15 In order to establish this element,
common to all their various claims that Euclid engaged in tortious
activity, the plaintiffs must prove that vibrations produced by the
short-nose coal hauler constituted “a substantial factor in
bringing about the injury and without which no harm would have
occurred.” E.g., Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 456,
458-59 (Tex. 1992) (emphasis supplied); Nixon v. Mr. Property
Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. 1985) (emphasis
supplied); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products
Liability § 15 (1997) (hereinafter Restatement (Third)) (“Whether
a product defect caused harm to persons or property is determined
by the prevailing rules and principles governing causation in
15
As the Texas Supreme Court neatly summarized:
Negligence requires a showing of proximate cause, while
producing cause is the test in strict liability. Proximate
and producing cause differ in that foreseeability is an
element of proximate cause, but not of producing cause.
Proximate cause consists of both cause in fact and
foreseeability. Cause in fact means that the defendant’s
act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about
the injury which would not otherwise have occurred. A
producing cause is “an efficient, exciting, or contributing
cause, which in a natural sequence, produced injuries or
damages complained of, if any.” Common to both proximate
and producing cause is causation in fact, including the
requirement that the defendant’s conduct or product be a
substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s
injuries.
Union Pump Co., 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995) (emphasis supplied,
citations omitted).
-46-
46
tort.”). By requiring that the allegedly tortious activity be a
factor “without which no harm would have occurred,” the test
embodies, as one of its elements, the “traditional ‘but-for’ rule
of causation.” 1 J. Hadley Edgar, Jr. & James B. Sales, Texas
Torts and Remedies § 1.05[2][a], at 1-111 (1998); see also W. Page
Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41, at 266 (5th ed.
1984) (hereinafter, Prosser & Keeton) (“Restricted to the question
of causation alone, and regarded merely as a rule of exclusion, the
‘but-for’ rule serves to explain the greatest number of
cases . . . .”); David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in
Fact, 75 Texas L. Rev. 1765, 1768 (1997) (noting that the but-for
standard is the “most widely accepted test” for determining cause
in fact); Restatement (Third), supra, § 15. That being the case,
Texas law requires that the plaintiffs prove but-for causation with
respect to the alleged injurious effect of the short-nose coal
hauler; it is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to merely present
evidence that the vibrations produced by the short-nose coal hauler
constituted a “substantial factor” in producing the plaintiffs’
injuries.16
16
Strictly speaking, the “substantial factor” inquiry is
probative only in the event that “two causes concur to bring about
an event, and either one of them operating alone, would have been
sufficient to cause the identical result.” Prosser & Keeton,
supra, § 41, at 266. The plaintiffs have not argued that the
Euclid short-nose coal hauler is one of several factors which would
have independently caused their injuries, so we need not consider
whether these facts fall into that special subset of cases.
-47-
47
C.
A five-step logical process provides a careful (if tedious)
model for determining whether a given event is a cause in fact of
a plaintiff’s injuries. In summary, the five logical steps for
proving but-for causation are as follows:
(a) identify the injuries in suit; (b) identify the
wrongful conduct; (c) mentally correct the wrongful
conduct to the extent necessary to make it lawful,
leaving everything else the same; (d) ask whether
the injuries would still have occurred had the
defendant been acting correctly in that sense; and
(e) answer the question.
Robertson, supra, at 1771. The application of this framework of
analysis will help to locate any logical flaw which may taint the
plaintiffs’ theory of causation.
The first step is to identify the plaintiffs’ injuries. In
this case, the plaintiffs have alleged that they have suffered
endplate infractions in their spines which render them more
susceptible to serious back pain in the future. The second step is
to name the defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct. Because there
are multiple answers at this second step relating to each of the
plaintiffs’ theories of liability, we must consider each theory
separately.
-48-
48
1.
The plaintiffs have a strict products liability claim and a
negligence claim based on defective design. The allegedly wrongful
conduct for the purposes of both of these claims was negligent
design of the short-nose coal hauler pursuant to Euclid’s business
decisions to stop manufacturing long-nose coal haulers and to begin
manufacturing short-nose coal haulers. Because these separate
claims focus on the same activity, they may be grouped for the
purpose of determining whether that activity was a cause in fact of
the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Taking the third analytical step with respect to these claims,
we must hypothesize a scenario that would erase the effect of the
allegedly wrongful conduct. According to the plaintiffs’ theory of
their products liability case, the short-nose coal hauler subjects
its operator to harmful vibration, rendering the machine defective
and unreasonably dangerous.17 Similarly, in the negligence rather
17
“In Texas, section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
governs claims for strict liability in tort.” American Tobacco Co.
v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 426 (Tex. 1997) (citing Firestone
Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex. 1996);
McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787, 788-89 (Tex.
1967)). According to that rule:
(1) one who sells any product in a defective condition
unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his
property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby
caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his
property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such
a product, and
-49-
49
than strict liability context, the plaintiffs additionally contend
that the Euclid acted negligently in designing the short-nose
hauler, such that the machine’s operators were subjected to harmful
vibrations, thus resulting in injury. In order to overcome the
argument that the balance between “the utility of the product and
the risk involved in its use” precludes liability on these
theories, see, e.g., American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d
420, 432 (Tex. 1997), the plaintiffs pointed to the older long-nose
coal hauler as a safer alternative design which, they contend, did
not suffer from the same defect.
For the purpose of these design-based theories, then, the
third step of the analysis would be accomplished by trading the
short-nose coal haulers for Euclid’s older long-nose coal hauler
models. The inquiry would then be completed by determining, at the
fourth step, whether the plaintiffs’ injuries would have occurred
if they drove long-nose coal haulers and not short-nose coal
haulers. If not, taking the fifth and final logical step, cause in
fact has been established.
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer
without substantial change in the condition in which it is
sold.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). “A product may be
unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in marketing, design, or
manufacturing.” Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d at 426.
-50-
50
2.
Regarding the plaintiffs’ remaining negligence and gross
negligence claims, the allegedly wrongful conduct was a marketing
defect, namely, Euclid’s failure to warn customers and operators
about safety risks arising from vibration in the short-nose coal
hauler. The plaintiffs contend that such warnings would have
allowed them to minimize their exposure to vibration and repetitive
trauma while operating the short-nose coal hauler.
Removing the effect of the wrongful conduct to take the third
logical step in this scenario, one must hypothesize a work
environment in which TUMCO and its employees were warned about
safety risks arising from the short-nose coal hauler’s tendency to
vibrate. One would therefore assume that precautions were taken to
reduce or eliminate the exposure to vibration, either by TUMCO’s
refusal to buy Euclid’s short-nose coal hauler, the plaintiffs’
refusal to operate the machine, or perhaps some sort of
prophylactic precaution such as a modification of the machine
itself or of the employees’ usage of the machine. Given this
scenario, the fourth step leads to the question of whether the
plaintiffs would have been injured in a work environment exactly
the same as it actually was except that they were not exposed to
unsafe vibrations in the short-nose coal hauler. If it can be
proved that there would have been no injury in this scenario, cause
-51-
51
in fact will have been established for the plaintiffs’ negligence
claim against Euclid.
3.
Based on the above reasoning, the key logical step in both
scenarios is the fourth step designated above, specifically,
“whether the injuries that the plaintiff[s] suffered would probably
still have occurred had the defendant behaved correctly in the
sense indicated.” Robertson, supra, at 1771. It is apparent that
in order to establish Euclid’s liability on theories of strict
products liability or negligence, the plaintiffs were required to
present evidence to prove one of the two factual causation
scenarios. They could show either that similarly situated workers
who operated long-nose coal haulers but not short-nose coal haulers
would not experience the injuries experienced by the plaintiffs
(products liability and design defect claims), or that similarly
situated workers who operated all the machines operated by the
plaintiffs except the short-nose coal hauler would not experience
the injuries experienced by the plaintiffs (marketing defect or
failure-to-warn claims). I now turn to those absolutely necessary
links of causation.
-52-
52
D.
-53-
53
Our guiding star in considering whether the plaintiffs have
adequately established causation to justify imposing liability upon
Euclid should be the recent treatment of tort causation by the
Supreme Court of Texas in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (hereinafter, Havner).
In that case the court reversed a jury verdict in favor of
plaintiffs who had claimed that use of the drug Bendectin caused a
birth defect in their child. The central issue throughout the
litigation was the reliability of the expert testimony offered to
establish causation. Though the specific issue before the court
was whether the Havners’ evidence was scientifically reliable and
constituted “some evidence” to support the plaintiffs’ judgment,
the circumstances of the case led the court to consider precisely
what a plaintiff must establish to raise a fact issue of whether a
drug caused an individual’s birth defect. This prompted a
discussion of some very fundamental issues relating to proving
causation.
The court noted that causation in toxic tort cases can be
discussed in terms of either general or specific causation:
General causation is whether a substance is capable
of causing a particular injury or condition in the
general population, while specific causation is
whether a substance caused a particular
individual’s injury. In some cases, controlled
-54-
54
scientific experiments can be carried out to
determine if a substance is capable of causing a
particular injury or condition, and there will be
objective criteria by which it can be determined
with reasonable certainty that a particular
individual’s injury was caused by exposure to a
given substance.
Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 714-15. In many toxic tort cases, however,
direct experimentation cannot be done. As a result, there can be
no reliable, direct evidence of specific causation. The court thus
reasoned:
In the absence of direct, scientifically
reliable proof of causation, claimants may attempt
to demonstrate that exposure to the substance at
issue increases the risk of their particular
injury. The finder of fact is asked to infer that
because the risk is demonstrably greater in the
general population due to exposure to the
substance, the claimant’s injury was more likely
than not caused by that substance. Such a theory
concedes that science cannot tell us what caused a
particular plaintiff’s injury. It is based instead
on a policy determination that when the incidence
-55-
55
of a disease or injury is sufficiently elevated due
to exposure to a substance, someone who was exposed
to that substance and exhibits the disease or
injury can raise a fact question on causation.
Id. at 715 (emphasis supplied) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320 n.13 (9th Cir. 1995) (on remand
from the Supreme Court)).
While Havner dealt with causation principles in the context of
a toxic tort case, the underlying issues are compellingly similar
to the problems of proving that the Euclid short-nose coal hauler
caused the plaintiffs’ injuries in this case. First, the
plaintiffs in Havner, just like the plaintiffs in the instant case,
brought a products liability suit based on theories of negligence,
defective design, and defective marketing. Second, the Havners did
not contend that all limb reduction birth defects are caused by
Bendectin, and, likewise, the plaintiffs before us in this appeal
recognize that not all endplate infractions are caused by driving
Euclid’s short-nose coal hauler. Finally, in Havner, as here, the
only proof of causation offered by the plaintiffs was scientific
expert testimony relating the results of studies on the association
between the use of a product and certain injuries which allegedly
resulted from that use.
-56-
56
The plaintiffs and the panel majority would prefer that this
case be treated differently than Havner, asserting that the present
litigation is nothing like the infamous Bendectin cases. Quite to
the contrary, this case bears many similarities to that
significant, trend-setting series of cases. An underlying premise
in many toxic tort cases is that the plaintiff has suffered an
injury, such as cancer, which may have occurred even if the
plaintiff had not been exposed to the substance at issue. So too
in this case, the plaintiffs claim that they have suffered an
injury, endplate infractions, which may have occurred even if they
had never operated the short-nose hauler. Furthermore, and very
significantly, just as toxic tort causation (as a practical matter)
usually cannot be established by exposing human subjects to the
substance in question for testing purposes, direct experimentation
cannot be done (or at least has not been done) to prove objectively
that use of the short-nose coal hauler causes endplate infractions,
and these plaintiffs are therefore left to attempt to prove their
case using epidemiological (or, in this case, pseudo-
epidemiological) studies. In these respects, the case sub judice
is much more akin to a toxic tort case than a traditional personal
injury case, and as such, we should not shy away from considering
Texas law regarding toxic torts.
Because causation cannot be proved directly by the plaintiffs,
the only remaining avenue available in tort law for the purpose of
-57-
57
proving causation is to demonstrate that their use of the short-
nose coal hauler increased their risk of injury. In order to
determine causation in these circumstances, the finder of fact must
be guided by the “more likely than not” burden of proof.
Havner established as a matter of Texas law that the more
likely than not burden of proof requires, in order to be probative
of causation, that epidemiological studies must demonstrate more
than a doubling of the risk of injury.18 The supreme court
explained:
Although we recognize that there is not a
precise fit between science and legal burdens of
proof, we are persuaded that properly designed and
executed epidemiological studies may be part of the
evidence supporting causation in a toxic tort case
and that there is a rational basis for relating the
requirement that there be more than a “doubling of
the risk” . . . to the more likely than not burden
of proof.
18
Of course, Havner does not purport to require that, and we
need not consider whether, epidemiological standards must be used
be used to indirectly prove tort causation with scientific medical
opinion testimony. It is certainly worthy of note, however, that
this Court has previously stated: “While we do not hold that
epidemiologic proof is a necessary element in all toxic tort cases,
it is certainly a very important element.” Brock v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1989).
-58-
58
Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 717. This same standard of causation applies
to the scientific evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in this case.
Even though the studies conducted by the plaintiffs’ experts are
not “epidemiological studies,” the plaintiffs’ studies seek to
accomplish the same objective as an epidemiological study -- they
attempt to explain the cause of the endplate infractions which
their MRI studies show that the plaintiffs experienced. Indeed,
the only reason why the plaintiffs’ experts’ studies are not
epidemiological studies is because they were not conducted
according to well-established standards for reliably conducting
epidemiological inquiries.
A scientific study providing indirect scientific evidence of
tort causation, standing alone, is not sufficiently probative of
legal causation if it does not tend to show that the suspected
cause is more likely than not the actual cause of an injury. In
other words, such a study is not probative of causation if it fails
to demonstrate that the suspected cause doubles the risk of injury
as compared to the general population which was not exposed or
subjected to the suspected cause.
-59-
59
E.
-60-
60
Assuming, arguendo, the admissibility of the plaintiffs’
experts’ testimony,19 the evidence of causation is insufficient to
support a verdict of negligence or strict liability. The key flaw
in the plaintiffs’ evidence is that it fails to show that the
plaintiffs’ common injuries and exposure to the Euclid short-nose
coal hauler are anything more than a coincidence.
Dr. Aprill’s “study” revealed endplate infractions in 90% of
the TUMCO employees and 68% of the “control group” of back pain
patients. Based on this statistical comparison, it is apparent
that any given back-pain patient most likely would have had the
infractions even though he had not operated a Euclid short-nose
hauler.20 Likewise, it is apparent that the risk of endplate
19
For reasons explained later, the expert opinions were not
admissible. See infra Part IV.
20
The panel majority refers to Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
Co. v. Atterbury, No. 06-97-00099-CV (Tex. App.--Texarkana July 31,
1998, n.p.h.) (not designated for publication), 1998 WL 436916
(hereinafter, 3M), for the propositions that there is “no
requirement that a party must have reliable epidemiological
evidence of a relative risk of 2.0 or greater” and that “[r]eliable
evidence of relative risk less than 2.0 can be considered, but must
be supported by other credible, reliable evidence of causation.”
Majority Op. at Part IV(c) (citing 3M, 1998 WL 436916, at *15). It
is certainly true that the court in Havner did not impose a
requirement that epidemiological evidence be used to prove
causation, but that does not mean that epidemiological evidence
that does not show a doubling of the risk may be used or that such
evidence will support a jury’s verdict.
The 3M Court relied on Pick v. American Medical Sys., Inc., 958
F. Supp. 1151 (E.D. La. 1997), for the proposition that
“epidemiological evidence with a relative risk lower than 2.0
should be considered because . . . it is relevant evidence.” 3M,
1998 WL 436916, at *15. Several things should be noted about the
-61-
61
infractions in the TUMCO employee test group is not more than twice
the risk of endplate infractions in the control group. Plainly
then, the statistics produced by the study do not tend to establish
the plaintiffs’ case. Cf. Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 717.
Moving beyond the statistical findings, however, the majority
primarily rests its conclusions upon the so-called “fingerprint” of
injury characteristics exposed by Dr. Aprill’s subjective
interpretation of the number and physical distribution throughout
the spine of endplate infractions as exhibited in the plaintiffs’
MRIs. Unfortunately, this “fingerprint” evidence is completely
irrelevant because it bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to
the links of causation that the plaintiffs are obligated to
demonstrate. The “fingerprints” give us no guidance as to whether
Pick opinion. First, Pick is the opinion of a federal district
court in Louisiana, applying Louisiana law to a products liability
and negligence case arising from a claim that Mr. Pick’s penile
implant, designed and manufactured by the defendant, caused Mr.
Pick to suffer from various health disorders which led to his
eventual death. Our task in deciding diversity cases is to apply
state law in the same fashion as we can best discern that the state
supreme court would apply it. Although in deciding 3M the
Texarkana Court of Appeals relied on a decision of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Pick,
to inform its interpretation of an opinion of the Supreme Court of
Texas, Havner, I am not persuaded that the Supreme Court of Texas
would follow the same path. Second, Pick refers only to the
admissibility of epidemiological evidence of relative risk above
1.0, not whether such evidence will support a jury verdict imposing
liability. See Pick, 958 F. Supp. at 1160. In fact, the court in
Pick granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the
inadequacy of the plaintiffs’ evidence to prove causation, and the
plaintiffs’ evidence in that case was not limited to
epidemiological evidence. See id. at 1173.
-62-
62
the injuries would have occurred if the plaintiffs had operated
long-nose coal haulers rather than short-nose coal haulers.
Neither do the “fingerprints” demonstrate that the injuries would
not have occurred absent exposure to the short-nose coal hauler.
There is no proof that the level of vibration produced by the
short-nose coal hauler was in any respect significantly different
from the level of vibration generated by other heavy earth-moving
equipment operated by the plaintiffs.21 In fact, Dr. Aprill
conceded that he could not distinguish, based on his study, which
of the many pieces of heavy machinery operated by the coal haulers
might have been the cause of the endplate infractions. That is so,
at least in part, because the study made no attempt to
differentiate among its subjects based on their work histories,
including what types of equipment the TUMCO employees had operated,
and for what periods of time they operated that equipment. Dr.
Aprill had no way to eliminate from his study the effects of other
sources of vibration.
As explained earlier, see supra Part III(B), one of the above
mentioned factual scenarios had to be established as a factual
21
Experts for Euclid, on the other hand, did test the other
machines and found that, assuming that the vibration of these
machines was a concern at all, other machines such as the bulldozer
and the scraper presented a much greater concern for the operators
than did the short-nose coal hauler. For the apparent purpose of
demonstrating to the jury that the vibrations were not a serious
concern, Euclid’s experts also compared the short-nose coal
hauler’s vibrations to those generated by a Corvette and a Suburban
driven around the courthouse square.
-63-
63
predicate to the plaintiffs’ recovery.22 Without a tie to the
particular injuries experienced by the plaintiffs, the opinions of
Dr. Bunch and Dr. Samaratunga shift on their foundations. In
essence, these two witnesses confirmed that the Euclid short-nose
coal hauler vibrates, that vibrations can cause back injury, and
that the plaintiffs who operated the short-nose coal hauler have
indeed suffered back injury. They relied on Dr. Aprill’s analysis
to connect their knowledge about the machine and theories about
whole body vibration to the plaintiffs’ flesh and blood. Their
testimony does not repair the fatal flaw in Dr. Aprill’s testimony.
The liability experts’ opinions that the Euclid short-nose
hauler may subject its operators to injury due to prolonged
exposure to harmful vibrations suffer from the same variety of
logical flaw -- they are not linked to the specific injury claimed
by the plaintiffs. Messrs. Chaseling and McDonald started with
their measurements of the vibrations produced by the short-nose
coal hauler. They then compared these findings to recommendations
22
An alternative, more formal logical explanation for the
problem presented by this case may be that Dr. Aprill’s reasoning
suffers from the “fallacy of post-hoc statistics,” which occurs
when “[d]ifferences that are discovered by accident then become the
verification of an ad-hoc hypothesis that was the result of the
observation.” Kenneth R. Foster & Peter W. Huber, Judging Science:
Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts 143 (1997) (quoting
Petr Skrabanek & James McCormick, Follies and Fallacies in Medicine
(1990)). Dr. Aprill conducted his tests in 1995; Messrs. Chaseling
and McDonald were summoned to Texas in 1996. It appears that the
vibration theory was developed to support Dr. Aprill’s analysis of
the MRIs. “This is fallacious because it confuses pre- and post-
test probabilities.” Id. (quoting Skrabanek & McCormick, supra).
-64-
64
by the ISO concerning what amount of vibration may be acceptable.
Having determined that the short-nose coal hauler’s level of
vibration is unacceptable according to ISO standards, these experts
then reasonably opined that exposure to too much vibration can be
harmful. All of this information is pertinent to the plaintiffs’
claims, but none of it provides the answer to the ultimate
question. None of it links the particularized information about
the vibrations experienced by the plaintiffs in this case to the
types of injuries experienced by the plaintiffs in this case. None
of it eliminates other possible sources of vibration as the cause
of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Their testimony therefore does not
permit the inference that the specific injuries claimed by the
plaintiffs were caused by the Euclid short-nose coal hauler.
Simply put, nothing in the evidence presented by Dr. Aprill or
any of the plaintiffs’ other experts suggests the required but-for
link between the short-nose hauler’s vibrations and the incidence
of endplate infractions in the plaintiffs’ backs. Explained yet
another way, even if Dr. Aprill’s study demonstrates that the
endplate infractions observed in the plaintiffs’ backs are more
likely than not attributable to some aspect of their occupation
(which, as a matter of logic, is all that his studies could
possibly demonstrate), the study does not link the Euclid short-
nose hauler to the increased incidence of endplate infractions.
The study does not distinguish the effects of the Euclid short-nose
-65-
65
coal hauler from the effects of any other kind of equipment
operated by the plaintiffs. Moreover, a mere “blend” of expert
opinions depicting a blurry relation resembling a causative link
between Euclid’s product and the plaintiffs’ injuries is
insufficient to support the verdict.23 “Proof of causation cannot
turn upon speculation or conjecture.” Leitch v. Hornsby, 935
S.W.2d 114, 119 (Tex. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The plaintiffs showed that they and their coworkers operated
the Euclid short-nose coal hauler. The plaintiffs demonstrated
that the Euclid short-nose coal haulers vibrate, and that may be a
bad thing. Finally, the plaintiffs explained that, in the opinion
of Dr. Aprill, they and their coworkers have endplate infractions
which appear in their spines in a unique fashion. But the
plaintiffs did not establish the crucial logical link -- that it
was the act of operating the short-nose coal haulers that caused
their endplate infractions. That logical lapse should be fatal to
their case. Because the plaintiffs have not presented evidence
that establishes that operating Euclid short-nose coal haulers was
a cause in fact of the plaintiffs’ endplate infractions, Euclid
should have been granted JMOL.24
23
This is a fair characterization of the testimony given by Dr.
Samaratunga, who essentially provided an “expert” summarization of
previously admitted expert testimony, apparently for the purpose of
bridging the gaps and creating an illusion of logical cohesion.
24
The panel majority is absolutely correct in its statement of
law that if an “act actively aids in producing an injury, it need
not be the sole cause, but it might be a concurring cause, and such
-66-
66
IV.
Euclid unsuccessfully sought to suppress the testimony of the
plaintiffs’ expert witnesses by challenging their qualifications to
present expert opinion. Euclid now challenges on appeal the
admission of plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony. This Court reviews
for abuse of discretion. See General Elec. v. Joiner, 118 S. Ct.
512, 517 (1997); Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 274
(5th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an
opinion or otherwise.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert guides the application of
Rule 702. As our Court recently summarized:
[W]hen expert testimony is offered, the trial judge
must perform a screening function to ensure that
the expert’s opinion is reliable and relevant to
the facts at issue in the case. See Daubert, 509
U.S. at 589, 113 S. Ct. at 2794-95. Daubert went
on to make “general observations” intended to guide
a district court’s evaluation of scientific
evidence. The nonexclusive list includes “whether
as might reasonably be contemplated as contributing to the result.”
Majority Op. at Part IV(c) (citing McClure v. Allied Stores, Inc.,
608 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Tex. 1980)). The fact that there may be
multiple causes in fact for any given injury does not, however,
eradicate the requirement of proving but-for causation in this
case.
-67-
67
[a theory or technique] can be (and has been)
tested,” whether it “has been subjected to peer
review and publication,” the “known or potential
rate of error,” and the “existence and maintenance
of standards controlling the technique’s
operation,” as well as “general acceptance.” 509
U.S. at 593-594, 113 S. Ct. at 2796-97.
Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1997).
A.
The plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions that the Euclid short-nose
coal hauler caused the plaintiffs’ back injuries were inadmissible
primarily because the substance of those opinions was not relevant
as a matter of law. Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony only
in circumstances in which the opinion “will assist the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
For all of the reasons stated in Part III of this dissent, which
explained that the evidence was not sufficient to prove causation,
the evidence was furthermore inadmissible under Rule 702 for the
same reason. Because the substance of the expert opinion testimony
did not tend to prove causation, it was inadmissible as a matter of
law because it could not assist the jury. As the Supreme Court
explained:
Faced with a proffer of expert scientific
testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at
the outset . . . whether the expert is proposing to
testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will
assist the trier of fact to understand or determine
a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary
assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology
underlying the testimony is scientifically valid
-68-
68
and of whether that reasoning or methodology
properly can be applied to the facts in issue.
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93, 113 S. Ct. at 2796 (footnotes omitted,
emphasis supplied); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
43 F.3d 1311, 1321 n.17, 1320-22 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Federal judges
must therefore exclude proffered scientific evidence under Rules
702 and 403 unless they are convinced that it speaks clearly and
directly to an issue in dispute in the case, and that it will not
mislead the jury.”); Kenneth R. Foster & Peter W. Huber, Judging
Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts 34-36 (1997);
cf. Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311-15 (5th
Cir. 1989).
Without belaboring the point, it should be sufficient to note
the well-established requirement, grounded in Rule 702, that there
be a “fit” between the opinions offered by an expert and some
material issue in the case. If, as in this case, an expert’s
opinion is based on reasoning which as a matter of law is
insufficient to support the expert’s conclusion, that opinion
should not be admitted into evidence because, as a matter of law,
it cannot be helpful to the trier of fact and is therefore
inadmissible.
B.
The plaintiffs’ causation experts’ testimony that the Euclid
short-nose coal hauler caused the plaintiffs’ back injuries was
-69-
69
also inadmissible because it was not scientifically reliable. In
deciding Euclid’s Daubert challenge, the district court
acknowledged the factors provided by the Supreme Court, and then
went on to list factors which it found compelling in this case: the
witnesses’ credentials; “a body of literature dealing with
repetitive trauma back injuries"; the fact that the theories could
be tested; and the fact that the “theories are derived from
methodology which relates to other accepted methodologies.”25 These
factors do not adequately ensure the reliability of the experts’
opinions.
Though the Supreme Court expressly noted that Daubert’s list
of factors is nonexclusive, it is certainly significant that the
testimony of Dr. Aprill is plainly inadmissible under those
original Daubert standards. The district court found that Dr.
Aprill’s hypothesis could be tested, but none of the other indicia
of reliability are present. The theory has not, in fact, been
tested. It has not been subjected to peer review or publication.
No known or potential rate of error has been provided. There are
no standards controlling the technique’s operation. There is no
suggestion that Dr. Aprill’s method is generally accepted.
There is a good reason why almost none of the original Daubert
criteria are satisfied by Dr. Aprill’s methodology. It is that
25
These supplemental factors were derived from United States v.
Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985), a pre-Daubert decision.
-70-
70
there is an entire field of study devoted to the task which he
attempted. “Epidemiology is the field of public health that
studies the incidence, distribution, and etiology of disease in
human populations and applies the findings to alleviate health
problems.” Linda A. Bailey et al., Reference Guide on
Epidemiology, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 123, 125
(Federal Judicial Center 1994) (emphasis in original). Dr. Aprill
did not use epidemiological methodology to come to his conclusions;
he generated a study for the purposes of this litigation and
offered an opinion about what it shows. This is precisely the sort
of ad hoc method of creating testimony that Rule 702 and Daubert
exclude.
The factors relied upon by the district court essentially
lower the Daubert bar. The court cited the witnesses’ credentials,
but plainly credentials are not enough. The court cited the
presence of “a body of literature” dealing with the type of
injuries claimed by the plaintiffs, but that factor completely
swallows Daubert’s inquiry into peer review and publication. As
Euclid points out, by that reasoning expert testimony about space
alien abductions would also be admissible. Likewise, the district
court’s reference to the fact that the plaintiffs’ experts’
“theories are derived from methodology which relates to other
accepted methodologies” simply lowers the standard set by Daubert’s
reliance upon “general acceptance.”
-71-
71
In sum, the factors cited by the district court in support of
admitting the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts seriously weaken
the standards of Rule 702 and Daubert. It was, therefore, an abuse
of discretion to consider these factors and admit the testimony.
V.
With respect to all of the original plaintiffs except Mr.
Johnny Bartley (who has since settled his claims against Euclid),
the claims are barred by limitations unless the discovery rule
applies. The jury found that the plaintiffs’ injuries were
inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. These are
the two prerequisites to applying the discovery rule under Texas
law. See, e.g., Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex.
1998); Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453,
456 (Tex. 1994).
In this case, it is very plain that the plaintiffs’ injuries
are not what the Supreme Court of Texas considers to be
“objectively verifiable.” “Expert testimony . . . d[oes] not
supply the objective verification of wrong and injury necessary for
application of the discovery rule.” S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 7
(Tex. 1996). Objective verification is a “higher level of
certainty” than the mere preponderance of evidence required to find
liability. Cf. id. at 19. For example, a sponge left inside a
person by a surgeon is objectively verifiable. See Gaddis v.
-72-
72
Smith, 417 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1967). In the context of a charge of
sexual abuse that was “discovered” after the alleged victim
recovered repressed childhood memories, the Supreme Court listed
the kinds of evidence that would qualify as objectively verifiable:
The kinds of evidence that would suffice would be a
confession by the abuser, e.g. Meiers-Post v.
Schafer, 170 Mich. App. 174, 427 N.W.2d 606, 610
(1988); a criminal conviction, e.g. Petersen v.
Bruen, 106 Nev. 271, 792 P.2d 18, 24-25 (1990);
contemporaneous records or written statements of
the abuser such as diaries or letters; medical
records of the person abused showing
contemporaneous physical injury resulting from the
abuse; photographs or recordings of the abuse; an
objective eyewitness’s account; and the like. Such
evidence would provide sufficient objective
verification of abuse, even if it occurred years
before suit was brought, to warrant application of
the discovery rule.
S.V., 933 S.W.2d at 15.
Here, as in Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1977),
“[e]ven the fact of injury is a matter of expert testimony.”
Robinson, 550 S.W.2d at 21 (quoted with approval in S.V., 933
S.W.2d at 7). There was dispute among the experts at trial as to
whether there is even such a thing as an “endplate infraction.”
The following dialogue occurred when Euclid cross-examined Dr.
Aprill at trial about his interpretations of the plaintiffs’ MRI
scans:
Q Now, sir, isn’t it true that the vast majority
of the articles that either you’ve written alone or
with other people, that the vast majority of these
articles have two radiologists, or at least two
radiologists, to look over the same scans that are
-73-
73
the subject of those articles in order to see if
the radiologists agree with the interpretations?
A No, that is not true.
Q Well, sir, do you think that there’s a problem
or that there’s something wrong about having work
checked over to see if your interpretation of an
MRI is the same as somebody else’s?
A No, I don’t.
Q Have you had a radiologist, other than
yourself, look over your interpretations of these
MRIs in order to see if they agree with what you
said?
A No, I have not.
Q But radiologists other than you have reviewed
these MRIs, have they not, sir?
A I don’t know.
Q Have you not seen the reports done by Dr.
Gallman, the chief of radiology at Schumpert
Hospital, concerning your interpretation of these
MRIs?
A I saw his review of the interpretation of five
of the MRIs. There are 165 scans done, and I think
he commented on five.
Q We are talking about the five Plaintiffs in
this case, he commented upon those, did he not?
A Yes. Yes, he did.
Q And he disagreed with many of the things you
said, did he not sir?
A Yes, he did.
Q And he disagreed with the importance that you
placed on some of the things that you found, did he
not, sir?
A Yes, he did.
-74-
74
Q And he disagreed with your opinions in this
case, did he not?
A Yes, he did.
Q Would you agree with me, sir, that different
radiologists have different styles interpreting
MRIs?
A Yes, they do.
Q I want to show you a statement out of the “New
England Journal of Medicine” . . . and ask if you
agree with this. . . . “This new study is also a
reminder that the interpretation of MRI findings
can vary substantially so that the results may be
equivocal despite the techniques or of
infallibility. Thus, for example, Jensen, et al
found that one expert neuroradiologist was 30
percent more likely to interpret a study as showing
a disc protrusion than a second expert
neuroradiologist reading the same films. This
variation, although no worse than that for many
other complex, clinical tests requiring expert
interpretation, creates further opportunities for
erroneous clinical decisions.” Would you agree
with that?
A Yes.
Q Some radiologists think certain things are
abnormal and some don’t, is that fair to say?
A Yes. Yes.
Q And there are a number of things that you
claim are abnormal on the MRIs of these Plaintiffs
here which other doctors do not think are abnormal;
isn’t that right, sir?
A I don’t know that for a fact. The only person
that I know that has commented on them is the
doctor that you mentioned.
The point was illuminated when Euclid presented its case. A
hospital’s chief radiologist presented as an expert witness, Dr.
William H. Gallman, III, had reviewed the plaintiffs’ MRIs. He
-75-
75
testified that there was absolutely nothing unique or abnormal
about them. He further commented that although his practice
involved daily reviews and interpretations of MRIs, he had never
seen or heard the term “endplate infraction,” none of his
colleagues had seen or heard it, and he believed that Dr. Aprill
had fabricated the concept for the purpose of this litigation. The
phenomenon referred to by Dr. Aprill as an endplate infraction is,
in the opinion of Dr. Gallman, “extremely common,” having “no
significance” and seen “every day on multiple studies of different
patients of all walks of life.” Another of Euclid’s experts, Dr.
Malcolm Pope, distinguished professor in the Departments of
Biomedical Engineering, Orthopedic Surgery, Preventative Medicine,
and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Iowa, testified
that endplate infractions are “not a widely accepted abnormality”
and that “[s]ome radiologists would not even report it.”
Where even the fact of injury is disputed, and contested
expert testimony provides the only explanation for the cause of
that injury, it is impossible to conclude that the injury is
“objectively verifiable.” The discovery rule is an exception to
Texas statutes which otherwise limit the period of time in which
plaintiffs may seek redress for injuries. The Supreme Court of
Texas has made it clear that the discovery rule is not justified in
cases where the injury cannot be demonstrated by clear physical
evidence. The plaintiffs’ claims in this case are time-barred
g:\opin\97-40365.dis -76-
76
because they do not meet that high prerequisite to the application
of the discovery rule.
VI.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
should be reversed and judgment should be rendered in favor of
Euclid. Accordingly, I dissent from the panel majority’s contrary
conclusion.
-77-
77
Bartley v. Euclid, Inc.
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date filed: 1998-11-03
Citations: 158 F.3d 261
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion