Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00555/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00555-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JERPE, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-03-555 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

AEROSPATIALE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

This is a product liability action arising from a helicopter

crash. Plaintiffs allege that either a manufacturing or design

defect in one of the helicopter’s main rotor blades caused the

blade to separate from the helicopter during flight, resulting in

the crash. The blade at issue was distributed by defendant

American Eurocopter Corporation (“AEC”). Pending before the court

is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion

for a Rule 702 hearing. The court resolves the matter upon the

parties’ papers and after oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion for

summary judgment and denies as moot the motion for a Rule 702

hearing.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 Undisputed unless otherwise noted. 1

2

I. Facts1

Plaintiffs have brought negligence and product liability

causes of action against defendant AEC, who manufactures and

distributes aviation products. The action is based on alleged

manufacturing and design defects in one of the main rotor blades

(the “red blade”) that caused the helicopter to crash into Honey

Lake on March 21, 2002. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed

Fact (“SUF”) ¶ 1; Fourth Amended Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 27. The

pilot, Raymond Watson, died in the crash. Plaintiffs’ decedent,

Charles Jerpe, survived initially but later died. Compl. ¶ 8,

31.

Plaintiffs have designated Dr. Ramesh Kar to testify that

the red blade contained defects. Plaintiffs originally

designated Brian Wilson to testify as to the same, SUF ¶ 2, but

soon after serving his Rule 26 report (and prior to deposition),

Mr. Wilson died of a heart attack, SUF ¶ 3. Dr. Kar was

subsequently designated to replace Mr. Wilson, and it is his

opinion that defendant attacks as failing to create a genuine

dispute regarding the existence of a defect. SUF ¶ 5.

Dr. Kar is a professional engineer with thirty years of

experience in the fields of mechanical metallurgy, materials

science, and failure analysis. Rule 26 Rep. of Dr. Ramesh Kar ¶

1. He holds a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering from

University of California at Berkeley. Id. Dr. Kar “tout[s]”

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

himself as a leader in composite failure analysis, SUF ¶ 7, and

edited a book entitled Composite Failure Analysis Handbook, SUF

¶ 8. While not an aerodynamicist (i.e., one who specializes in

aerodynamics), SUF ¶ 11, Dr. Kar claims to have a basic

understanding of aerodynamic forces on aircraft component parts

based on his course work in mechanical engineering. 

In terms of Dr. Kar’s relevant helicopter-related

experience, he has previously consulted with composite

helicopter blade manufacturers, but is not a helicopter blade

design engineer, per se. SUF ¶ 12. In addition, his book

covers composite helicopter rotor blades. Kar Decl. ¶ 7. 

Twenty years ago, he worked with the National Transportation

Safety Board to examine a different Eurocopter rotor blade. SUF

¶ 14. He also once used laboratory equipment to identify

porosity in a blade manufactured by a different company. SUF ¶

13.

A. Evidence of a Manufacturing Defect

To prepare his Rule 26 report, Dr. Kar examined the reports

prepared by other experts for the instant case, including their

accompanying exhibits, such as x-ray and ultrasonic lab

documents. SUF ¶ 17. He also visually inspected the helicopter

wreckage and the red blade. SUF ¶ 17. Based on the reports and

visual inspection, Dr. Kar’s Rule 26 report stated that “[w]ork

performed by Brian Wilson using X-ray radiography and ultrasonic

methods clearly shows that the failed red blade was associated

with indications of areas of debonding and delaminations in

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Delaminations are areas where composite layers have not 2

joined together. Kar Decl. ¶ 11.

On March 13, 2007, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to 3

modify the scheduling order, which would have extended the deadline

for discovery and permitted the destructive testing to be

conducted.

4

areas approximately 2/3 span away from the attachment points.”2

SUF ¶ 19. It further stated that “[t]hese are more likely than

not manufacturing defects further exacerbated by in-service use

of the blade as well as intrusion of moisture.” SUF ¶ 19. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Kar added the caveat that he wanted “to

perform destructive tests to unequivocally establish the exact

nature of the manufacturing defects.” SUF 19. Dr. Kar did no 3

tests or measurements to determine the location, size, or depth

of the suspect areas of debonding and delamination. SUF ¶ 24. 

Similarly, Dr. Kar did not determine if the suspect areas were

fragmented or continuous. SUF ¶ 27. 

Defendant maintains that Dr. Kar merely parroted the

findings and opinions of Wilson, SUF ¶ 23, whereas plaintiffs

maintain that Dr. Kar independently arrived at his conclusions. 

His deposition testimony on this point is less than clear. For

example, Dr. Kar stated that “[t]he nondestructive tests

performed by Mr. Wilson clearly showed that there are

indications of manufacturing defects.” Kar Depo. 38:14-16,

Decl. of Eric Strain, Ex. E. He also stated, “I’m relying on

Mr. Wilson’s work.” Kar Depo. 49:12. But, based on this, it is

unclear whether Dr. Kar was merely relying on the same

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 He also noted that defects can be detected without the aid 4

of an exemplar. Kar Depo. 60:2-6.

5

underlying data as Wilson, or if Dr. Kar was in fact repeating

the opinions of Wilson. 

Similarly, with regard to the ultrasonic data, Dr. Kar

stated that they revealed that there were “anomalies,” without

clearly specifying whether he independently determined that

there were anomalies, or if this was in fact the opinion of the

ultrasound technician (who has not been properly disclosed as an

expert). Kar Depo. 46:23-47:1. Likewise, when asked whether

Mr. Wilson or the ultrasound technician had an exemplary blade

available at the time of the ultrasound as a basis for

comparison, he responded that he did not know, since he was not

present for the tests. Kar Depo. 59:1-14. Instead, he offered

the following:

I do know that Mr. Wilson and his team of technicians

have sufficient background and experience in testing

composites where, when they run an A-scan, they say

there’s an indication of a defect here, and I’d tend to

agree with them because they know what they’re doing.

It’s certainly not a situation where you have an

individual without the reputation of Mr. Wilson and his

team of experts who are totally untrained and are just

shooting in the dark. I don’t think that’s the case.

Kar Depo. 59:14-23.4

Dr. Kar’s declaration, executed on March 20, 2007, provides

a clearer explanation for the basis of his opinions. It stated:

I personally examined the subject rotor blade. I

personally examined the fractures and failure locations

on the rotor blade. I examined the lab results (X-ray

radiographs and ultrasonic data) and independently

confirmed that the information that I saw in Mr.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 5 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Wilson’s report was accurate based on my own

independent evaluation and verification.

Kar Decl. ¶ 21. He also expressed that he had “sufficient

information, knowledge, and evidence to support [his] opinion of

the failure of the red blade causing the crash which is not

dependent on destructive testing.” Kar Decl. ¶ 23. 

B. Evidence of a Design Defect

Dr. Kar’s Rule 26 report also indicated that he

“concur[ed]” with the opinion of Mr. Wilson that the subject

blades were most likely suitable for 5,000 hours of service,

rather than the 20,000 hours specified by the manufacturer,

because of the absence of Z-fibers. SUF ¶ 50. He explained

that his work at Northrup demonstrated to him that resistance to

fatigue and impact damage is increased by the use of Z-stitch

methods. SUF ¶ 50. He stated that use of a Z-stitch would have

more likely than not delayed the onset of failure beyond the

20,000 hour limit and that the red blade was therefore defective

in design for failing to employ this method. SUF ¶ 50.

There is no dispute that, in a draft of his report on the

same day that the final report was signed, Dr. Kar did not

mention Z-stitching; rather, he incorporated this discussion

after talking to counsel for plaintiffs. SUF ¶ 53. Dr. Kar

also stated that he had not done the testing necessary to

determine where the Z-stitching would be incorporated. SUF ¶

56. He also had no data about whether this blade, or any

helicopter rotor blade, without Z-stitching had a history of

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

problems in the field. SUF ¶¶ 57-58. Finally, he conceded that

he had not conducted “any testing or research or calculations to

support Mr. Wilson’s opinion that this [particular] blade should

only have a 5,000 hour life limit,” SUF ¶ 62, but stated that he

had “done sufficient work on Z-stitched composite structures to

know there is significant improvement in the damage tolerance

resistance,” Kar Depo. 78:8-10.

C. Evidence of Causation

With regard to the issue of causation, Dr. Kar stated that

the suspect areas of delamination and debonding caused the blade

to become unbalanced and tear from its attachment point on the

helicopter. Kar Depo. 112:17-21. He believed that based on the

macroscopic fracture features he observed on the blade’s sleeve,

he could discern how the red blade failed. Kar Depo. 94:16-19. 

He opined that the red blade separated from the helicopter in an

upward fashion. Kar Depo. 105:19-20. Nevertheless, Dr. Kar, as

noted earlier, is not an aerodynamicist. In addition,

plaintiffs have also designated two accident reconstructists,

William Llorente and Peter Leffe, who will testify as to how the

blade failed prior to impact with the water.

II. Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated

that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56©; see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 7 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Secor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp., 51 F.3d

848, 853 (9th Cir. 1995).

Under summary judgment practice, the moving party

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing

the district court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of "the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here

the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a

dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be

made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, and admissions on file.'" Id. Indeed,

summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for

discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element

essential to that party's case, and on which that party will

bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. "[A]

complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts

immaterial." Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment

should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary

judgment, as set forth in Rule 56©, is satisfied." Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the

burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a

genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. 

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 8 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

586 (1986); see also First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv.

Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); Secor Ltd., 51 F.3d at 853. 

In attempting to establish the existence of this factual

dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its

pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts

in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material,

in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11; see also First

Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 289; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 954

(9th Cir. 1998). The opposing party must demonstrate that the

fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect

the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Owens v. Local

No. 169, Ass’n of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347,

355 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific

Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)), and

that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,

Anderson, 477 U.S. 248-49; see also Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g

& Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 1999).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual

dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue

of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the

claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to

resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." 

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 9 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

First Nat'l Bank, 391 U.S. at 290; see also T.W. Elec. Serv.,

809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to

'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see

whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" Matsushita, 475

U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee's

note on 1963 amendments); see also Int’l Union of Bricklayers &

Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752

F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court

examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. 

Rule 56©; see also In re Citric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090,

1093 (9th Cir. 1999). The evidence of the opposing party is to

be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable

inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the

court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v. Diebold,

Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam)); See also

Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121,

1132 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn

out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to

produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be

drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp.

1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th

Cir. 1987).

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 10 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party

"must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as

a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the

nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'"

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment argues that Dr.

Kar’s opinions are inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co.

v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), which require that expert

opinions derive from facts or data and be based upon reliable

methodology. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is

denied with respect to the manufacturing defect claim and the

issue of causation but is granted with respect to the design

defect claim.

A. Manufacturing Defect

First, defendant moves for summary judgment on the

manufacturing defect claim. Defendant argues that Dr. Kar’s

opinion as to this issue is not reliable and therefore fails to

create a genuine issue of material fact. The principal basis

for this attack is that Dr. Kar has impermissibly relied on the

opinions of Mr. Wilson, rather than arriving at his own

independent opinions. Defendant also argues that Dr. Kar’s

opinions do not flow from reliable methodology.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 11 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 permits experts to rely on

“facts or data” as a basis for opinions, even when not

themselves admissible, so long as they are of a type reasonably

relied upon by experts in the relevant field. Fed. R. Evid.

703. Nevertheless, experts may not solely rely on the opinions

of other experts. See, e.g., Turner v. Burlington Northern

Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding

that an expert was not permitted to testify as to cause of a 

fire where the opinion was based on a different non-testifying

expert’s lab report that the fire was started by gasoline). 

Here, the issue is whether Dr. Kar’s opinion that the red blade

contained a manufacturing defect was based upon the “facts or

data” contemplated by Rule 703, which would be permissible, or

solely upon the opinion of Mr. Wilson, which would be

impermissible.

The court finds that Dr. Kar’s opinion, as set forth his

Rule 26 report, was based on visual inspection, photographs, xrays, and ultrasounds, which comprise “facts or data” that need

not themselves be admissible in evidence. As noted earlier, Dr.

Kar’s deposition testimony was somewhat ambiguous on the issue

of whether he was merely relying on the same underlying data set

produced at the direction of Mr. Wilson, or if he was relying on

both that data set and the conclusions that Mr. Wilson drew

therefrom. Nevertheless, Dr. Kar’s declaration clearly states

that he independently arrived at his opinions by, for example,

reviewing x-ray radiographs and ultrasonic data. His reliance

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 12 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

on the data produced by X-ray and ultrasound technicians is of

the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. See

Kar Decl. ¶ 19. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Kar arrived at the

same conclusion of Mr. Wilson does not mean that he simply

parroted Mr. Wilson’s opinion. 

The court also finds that Dr. Kar’s opinion as to the

existence of the manufacturing defect is based upon reliable

methodology. During deposition, Dr. Kar explained that “[i]n

order to perform a failure analysis, you do visual; you do

nondestructive tests, including ultrasonic, x-ray radiography,

which has been done.” Kar Depo. 41:19-22. See also Kar Decl. ¶

12 (“The protocol to perform a composite failure evaluation

encompasses 1) examination of the entire structure itself to

determine global failure mode; followed by 2) visual

macroscopic/microscopic evaluation of the fracture points of the

failed components; supplemented with 3) field and laboratory

non-destructive and destructive test methods as and if

determined to be necessary.”) (emphasis in original).

Defendant’s attacks go to the weight that should be

afforded to Dr. Kar’s testimony, not its admissibility. For

example, defendant faults Dr. Kar for not being able to explain

how the blade became defective during the manufacturing process;

for not being able to eliminate alternate causes of debonding

and delamination; and for not being able to testify as to the

condition of the blade when it left defendant’s hands. These

assertions do not prove that Dr. Kar’s opinion -- which stated

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 13 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Defendant argues that Dr. Kar’s declaration is a “sham” 5

declaration because it contradicts his deposition testimony that

destructive testing was necessary to determine the exact nature of

the defects. Plaintiff responds that the cited portions of the

deposition testimony were referring only to the closed portions of

the blade. Part of the confusion is likely attributable to the

fact that the same type of defect (debonding and delamination) is

alleged to pervade both the closed and open/missing parts, which

makes it difficult to determine if Dr. Kar was addressing defects

in the former or latter.

14

that the “areas of debonding and delaminations . . . are more

likely than not manufacturing defects” -- is based on faulty

methodology. Rule 26 Rep. of Dr. Kar ¶ 11. 

For substantially similar reasons, the fact that Dr. Kar

did not conduct destructive testing does not mean that his

methodology was flawed, or that there is insufficient evidence

from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a

manufacturing defect exists. Dr. Kar stated that destructive

tests would be necessary to determine “the exact nature of the

defect, whether it’s excessive porosity, delamination caused

because of a contaminant in the composite, or excessive moisture

during the curling stage.” Kar Depo. 48:15-19. This

information might augment plaintiffs’ case but the existing

facts and data supporting Dr. Kar’s opinion are sufficient to

create a triable issue as to the existence of a manufacturing

defect. In addition, it appears that at least some portions of

the blade were already exposed and therefore did not require

destructive testing. Kar Decl. ¶ 21. 5

Finally, Dr. Kar also expressed his opinion that the

alleged delamination and debonding was caused by manufacturing

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 14 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiffs’ expert, William Lawrence, stated that when he 6

spoke with aerodynamicists and other experts about the possibility

of the blade moving in an upward rather than outward fashion, “they

basically just laughed at me.” Depo. of William Lawrence, Reply

Decl. of Eric Strain, Ex. B, 261:6-12. 

15

defects as opposed to impact from the crash. He explained the

basis for his opinion: “The overall fracture morphology in these

areas is totally inconsistent with impact caused by the blade

hitting the water . . . Based on my knowledge of aerodynamics .

. . the sudden loss of these portions of the helicopter blade

would cause it to pitch up.” Kar Decl. ¶ 27(E). He also stated

that “there are [] portions of the blade which have exposed

fractures available for examination and . . . that they did not

fracture due to impingement with the water; but were gone well

before the blade hit the water.” Id. Dr. Kar’s belief is that

the red blade initially flew upward rather than outward, denting

the “beanie” directly above it. One of plaintiffs’ experts

testified that this was essentially impossible, but this is the 6

subject of a genuine dispute, making summary judgment

inappropriate.

B. Design Defect

Defendant also moves for summary judgment with regard to

the alleged existence of a design defect. During his

deposition, Dr. Kar confessed that he had not included any

discussion of Z-stitching because “initially I was not very

comfortable, since I had not looked at Z-stitched rotor blades.” 

Kar Depo. 146:20-22. Nevertheless, at the eleventh hour, he

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 15 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

inserted an opinion regarding Z-stitching based on his

conversations with Mr. Franecke, who assured him that his

training, education, and experience was sufficient for him to

testify on Z-stitching. SUF ¶ 53.

The court finds that Dr. Kar is not qualified to testify as

to this issue. The most convincing evidence on this point stems

from Dr. Kar’s apparent discomfort with testifying on Zstitching as it pertained to rotor blades on civilian

helicopters. He also stated that he had no data about whether

any helicopter rotor blade without Z-stitching had any problems,

SUF ¶ 57, and that he had not conducted any testing to

substantiate Mr. Wilson’s opinion that the blade should only

have a 5,000 hour life limit, SUF ¶ 62. In short, Dr. Kar can

testify only to the benefits of Z-stitching at a high level of

generality, which is insufficient to qualify him as an expert on

this issue. Accordingly, the court grants defendant’s motion

with regard to the existence of a design defect.

C. Causation

Finally, defendant moves for summary judgment on the

alternative ground that there is insufficient evidence to infer

that the alleged defect caused the accident. Dr. Kar’s

testimony states that the suspect areas of delamination and

debonding caused the red blade to become unbalanced and tear

from its attachment point on the helicopter. Kar Depo. 112:17-

21. He based this opinion on the fact that “the red blade

demonstrates failure patterns in its composite attachment points

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 16 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

different than the other two blades.” Kar Decl. ¶ 27. In

combination with the expert opinions of plaintiffs’ accident

reconstructionists, this is sufficient to create a genuine issue

of material fact. Accordingly, the court denies summary

judgment as to the issue of causation.

IV. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part.

2. The motion for a Rule 702 hearing is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 254 Filed 05/10/07 Page 17 of 17