Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00927-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

27

28

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 1

(1993).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES ESTRADA; TINA DUNCAN; )

MANUEL ESTRADA, JR.; DAVID ESTRADA )

ARLENE GREEN AND DOLORES ESTRADA )

AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE )

ESTATE OF MANUEL ESTRADA, SR., )

) 2:05-cv-927-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) In Limine Ruling on

) Plaintiffs’ Liability

GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC., a ) Experts’ Opinions*

Washington Corporation; UNITED )

RENTALS, INC., a Delaware )

Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Genie Industries, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves under

Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 for an order 1

excluding the testimony of Plaintiffs’ liability experts, David V.

MacCollum (“MacCollum”) and Gerald R. Fulghum (“Fulghum”). (Def.’s 

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 8
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

27

28

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s motion is untimely because 2

it was not filed before the Rule 16 law and motion deadline. (Opp’n at

2:10-15.) However, that deadline does not apply to Defendant’s

evidentiary motion which is an in limine motion authorized by the Final

Pretrial Order. (See Final Pretrial Order (“FPO”) at 8:11-13.) 

Defendant states that Estrada “was found pinned between the 3

lift’s platform railing and a cable tray attached to the ceiling.”

(Mot. at 1:23-24.) Plaintiffs supports their position that Estrada was

found “pinned between the control panel of the aerial lift” and the

cable tray with deposition testimony. (Pls.’ Opp’n to Mot. and

Supporting Evidence (“Opp’n”) at 1:26-27.) Therefore, Plaintiffs’

position is credited for purposes of this motion. 

2

Mot. to Exclude Expert Test. (“Mot.”) at 2:7.) Plaintiffs oppose the

motion. 

2

Background

This is a wrongful death action arising out of a fatal

accident which occurred when Manuel Estrada (“Estrada”) was operating

an aerial lift that Defendant designed and manufactured. (FPO at

2:12-13.) Plaintiffs are Estrada’s surviving wife and four adult

children. (Id. at 2:17-18.) Estrada was found pinned between the

control panel of the aerial lift and an overhead cable tray. There 3

were no witnesses to the accident. (Id. at 2:15). 

Defendant asserts that MacCollum puts forth the following

liability theories: “there is a problem with the design of the lift’s

controls, which allows an operator to inadvertently activate the

controls if he leans over the control panel[;]” “the lift should be

equipped with some sort of bar over the control panel[;] and [] the

toggle switches should be designed such that they resemble those used

by some automobile manufacturers.” (Mot. at 5:2-6.) Defendant

asserts that Fulghum’s liability theories are that “the controls on

the lift are defective” and “that the controls on the boom lift should

be placed in a different position or that there should be a guard over

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 8
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

27

28

This Order is limited to the aforementioned theories of 4

liability, as stated in Defendant’s Motion. (See Mot. at 5:2-7, 6:5-

15.) 

3

the controls.” (Id. at 6:5-6.) With respect to the positioning of

the control panel, “Fulghum opines that the control should be

positioned in such a way that the operator has maximum mobility and

visibility” and that “the controls should be moveable or swing out.” 

(Id. at 6:7-9, 11.) Finally, Defendant states that Fulghum “further

opines that the foot switch should be positioned at a 45-degree

angle.” (Id. at 6:12-13.) 4

Discussion

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, “admission of

‘scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge’ by a qualified

expert [is permitted] if it will ‘assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.’” Mukhtar v.

Cal. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002). “The

Supreme Court has defined the role of the district court as that of a

gatekeeper charged with the task of deciding whether an expert’s

scientific testimony satisfies Rule 702's general requirements of

reliability and relevance.” Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc.,

199 F. Supp. 2d 53, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at

597). Further, FRE 702 “incorporate[s] Daubert’s formulation of the

gatekeeping task: the district court must make certain that ‘(1) the

testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is

the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness

has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the

case.’” Id. (citing FRE 702). 

Daubert provid[es] a non-exclusive list of factors

for determining whether expert testimony is

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 8
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

27

28

4

sufficiently reliable to be admitted into

evidence, including: (1) whether the scientific

theory or technique can be (and has been) tested,

(2) whether the theory or technique has been

subjected to peer review and publication, (3)

whether there is a known or potential error rate,

and (4) whether the theory or technique is

generally accepted in the relevant scientific

community. 

Mukhtar, 299 F.3d at 1064 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94, Kumho

Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999)). “Although the

focus of the overall inquiry must be on principles and methodology and

not on conclusions, ‘nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of

Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is

connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A

court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap

between the data and the opinion proferred.’” Colon ex rel. Molina,

199 F. Supp. 2d at 69 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136,

146 (1997)). 

I. Causation

Defendant argues that MacCollum and Fulghum’s opinions

should be excluded because their “hypotheses are based on speculation

and conjecture.” (Mot. at 2:24.) Defendant further contends that

“[e]xpert testimony that is offered to prove causation is not relevant

if the proposed expert can only offer possibilities not

probabilities.” (Id. at 9:13-14, 12:11-12.) Plaintiffs counter that

“even if there is uncertainty as to exactly how the incident

occurred,” their experts can give the challenged opinions because of

the circumstantial evidence of “Estrada [having been] found pinned

between the control panel and the overhead cable tray . . . .” (Id.

at 14:8-10.) Plaintiffs argue that “even in unwitnessed accidents,

causation is established where it is based on permissible inferences

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 8
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

27

28

5

drawn from circumstantial evidence.” (Id. at 14:14-15.) “Modern tort

law permits [circumstantial] proof of causation.” Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, Defendant has not shown that MacCollum and Fulghum are

not qualified to testify on causation. 

II. Theories of Liability 

A. Guard over the control panel 

Defendant argues that neither of Plaintiffs’ liability

experts is qualified to testify that its aerial lift was defective

because the lift lacked a guard to prevent Estrada’s upper body from

making contact with the control panel. (Mot. at 2:23.) MacCollum and

Fulghum are sufficiently qualified to so testify. Their background

and experience as safety engineers includes determining conceptually

whether this safety feature was required. 

MacCollum has over 55 years of experience as a safety

engineer where “his job is to look at development work and anticipate

safety hazards”; he authored a study for the Center to Protect

Workers’ Rights “involving design principles for construction

equipment” where “he developed five design criteria which have been

adopted by industry”; he inspected the aerial lift involved in the

accident; has previously operated other aerial lifts; viewed a video

depicting a person operating the same model lift involved in the

accident; and has previously testified as an expert in a trial

involving an aerial lift which also lacked a guard over the control

panel. (Opp’n at 4:12-13, 4:21-23, 4:28, 5:1-2, 4:25-28, 4:18-20.) 

Fulghum spent sixteen and a half years as “primary

investigator for Cal-OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health

Administration] investigating industrial accidents [before] retiring

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 8
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

27

28

Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3642(d) 1

provides, in pertinent part: “Any powered elevating work platform shall

have both upper and lower control devices. Controls shall be plainly

(continued...)

6

in 2001”; currently provides consulting services “as a safety engineer

for government, labor, and private industry in addition to litigation

support work”; has worked on four other cases (three as lead OSHA

inspector and one as an expert) involving aerial lifts manufactured by

Defendant’s competitor; has operated other aerial lifts; “is familiar

with the machinery involved here”; “viewed a DVD of a functionality

test of the model [] aerial lift involved in [this] accident[;]

reviewed photographs of the accident site”; and inspected the subject

aerial lift. (Id. at 5:6-13, 19-21.) 

Further, although neither MacCollum nor Fulghum have tested

their opinion of the alternative design of a bar or guard over the

control panel of the subject aerial lift, the “Daubert [factors are]

flexible [] and [the lack of] testing[] is [not] dispositive.” 

Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865, 870 (7th Cir. 2001); 

(see Opp’n at 17:24-26, 21:6-8.) Rather, the question is whether “the

experts’ testimony satisfies the other Daubert guideposts used to

examine reliability of the methodology [such as] any evidence that the

[theories] ha[ve] been favorably subject to peer review or generally

accepted in the relevant communities.” Dhillon, 269 F.3d at 870. 

MacCollum and Fulghum support their opinions by, inter alia,

citing the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) rule A92.5,

which requires “protect[ing] [] the controls from inadvertent

operation,” and Cal-OSHA regulations, Title 8, section 3642(d), “which

requires the presence of a guard to protect against accidental

operation.” (Opp’n at 13:5-11.) The ANSI and OSHA provisions cited 1

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 6 of 8
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

27

28

(...continued) 1

marked as to their function and guarded to prevent accidental

operation.” Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 8, § 3642(d). 

MacCollum’s opinion that “there is a problem with the design 2

of the lift’s controls” and Fulghum’s opinion, that “the controls on the

lift are defective” are necessarily subsumed within their theory that

there should have been a bar or guard over the control panel. (Mot. at

5:2-5, 6:5-6.) 

7

by MacCollum and Fulghum support their opinions. See Milanowicz v.

The Raymond Corp., 148 F. Supp. 2d 525, 533 (D.N.J. 2001) (where the

court identified standards, such as OSHA and ANSI, as important

indicia of reliability in evaluating expert testimony). 

2

B. Remaining Theories

Defendant argues that MacCollum is not qualified to testify

“that the toggle switches should be designed such that they resemble

those used by some automobile manufacturers” and that this “opinion[]

is not based on any tests or calculations.” (Mot. at 5:5-7.) 

Defendant also contends that Fulghum is not qualified to testify “that

the controls . . . should be placed in a different position” such that

they have “maximum mobility and visibility” and that “the controls

could be moveable or swing out” because “he cannot identify the

optimum location” of the controls and Fulghum “has never seen an

aerial lift with [controls that are moveable and swing out].” (Mot.

at 5:5-6, 6:5-6, 8-9, 11-12.) Finally, Defendant also contends that

Fulghum is not qualified to testify that “the [aerial lift’s] foot

switch should be positioned at a 45 degree angle.” (Id. at 6:12-13.) 

Plaintiffs have not shown how MacCollum and Fulghum have

sufficient experience to give such expert opinions. Each witness

supports his opinions with only a single, untested example of use of

his design theory. MacCollum asserts that the toggle switches “are

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 7 of 8
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

27

28

8

already in use in the automotive industry.” (Opp’n at 10:27-28.) 

Fulghum asserts that a pivoted or wireless control panel is “commonly

found in concrete boom trucks.” (Id. at 13:25-26.) However, these

examples are insufficient to satisfy the “Daubert guideposts used to

examine [the] reliability of the methodology [such as] [] evidence

that the [theories] ha[ve] been favorably subject to peer review or

generally accepted in the relevant communities.” Dhillon, 269 F.3d at

870. Therefore, MacCollum and Fulghum will not be allowed to offer

opinions on the toggle switches, that the controls should be placed in

a different position and should be mobile (pivoted or wireless), and

that the foot switch should be positioned at 45 degrees. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Defendant’s motion is granted in

part and denied in part.

Dated: March 9, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 83 Filed 03/12/07 Page 8 of 8