F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 3, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1433 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00634 CV -CG -B RICH ARD PH IL LI PS, DE DAPH IL LI PS,
Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us AMERIC AN HONDAMOTOR CO., INC., HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. , HONDA R&D AMERICAS, INC ., HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC., HONDA OF NO RTH AMERICA, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ala bam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 3, 200 7)Honora ble J
. Owen Forr ester, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of Ge org ia, * sitti ngby desig nation. 2 Before ED MON DS ON , C hief Judge, H UL L, Circuit Judge and FORRES TE R, * District Judge. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant R ic hard

P hil lip s ( “ Pl ai nti ff

”) f ile d th is p ro duc t l ia

bil ity sui t a ga ins t D ef

en dants -Appe lle es A m er ic anH onda Mo tor Co
. , I nc . , H onda

Mo tor Co
. , L td. , H onda

R& D A m er ic as , I nc . , H onda of A m er ic a Mf

g. , I nc . , a nd H onda North A m erica , I nc. ( collectively , “ De fendants”), alleging that a Honda A l l
- T e rr a i n V e h i c l e ( “A T V ” ) w a s u n r e a s o n ab l y d an g e r o u s . A f t e r e x c l u d i n g s o me testim ony from Plaintiff’ s expert and treating phy sicians, the district court granted
s u mmary j u d g me n ti n f

a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t s . P l a i n t i f

f ap p e a l e d
. We a f

f i rm.

I. Ba ck gr ound

This case is a product liabili ty action arising und er A labam a law
. Plaintiff has ty pe-2 diabetes. A s a result, he has no sensatio n in his fee t and cannot feel te m pe rat ur e ch an ge s ar ou nd hi s fe etor a nk le s. O n 7 S ep te m

be r 2001 , P la int if

f use d an A T V to pul l a

law n m ow er

a ro und his farm
. He m owed his field for a bout an hour and a half w hile wearing workThe Honda ATV ha s an air- cooled e ng ine. 1 3 boot s and thic k c ott on s oc ks. P la int if f al le ge s th at

w he n he a rr ive d ho m e an d
re m ove d hi s bo ots , he dis co ve re d burn s onhis f ee t. P la int if

f fi le d th is s uit

a ga ins t Defen da nt s, al le gi ng th athi gh tem pe rat ur es in si de th e fo ot well s m ad e th e ATV
unr ea sona

bly dange ro us and tha t the hig h te m pe ratur es c au se d hi s in

j ur ie s. D ef en dants m ove d f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. I n op posi ng s um m ar y j udgm en t, Pl ai nt iff rel ie d p rin ci pa ll y

on tes ti m on y

fro m Mi ke Bu rle so n, an ex pe rt i n ATV de sig n and s af

ety . A ft er

som e pr el im inary

te sti ng, Burl es on c ondu ct ed te sts on the Honda AT V in July

and Septem

ber 2003. In both tests, he placed therm ocoupl es

-- te m pe ratur e m ea sur ing pr obe s - - on the a nkl es of adum m y . H e co ve re d th e
an kle s and h ee ls w ithsoc ks and b oot s li ke the one s P la int if f w or e on the da te of the alleged accident; he also placed therm ocoupl es on the outs ide of the boots at the ankl es . H e the n pl ac ed the dum m y on the H onda

A T V , hoo ke d th e A T V to a sim ilar m ower , and op erate d the AT V f or a sim ilar tim e. T he tests wer e conducted in an op ene nvi ro nm en t w ithw ind a nd f luc tuatin g te m

pe ratur es . D ur ing the Jul y

te st, Burl es on a lso te ste d adif fe re nt A T V to de te rm ine
w he the r a sa fe r, pr ac tic al a lte rn at ive de sig n e xis te d. T he oth er A T V w as a n A rc tic Cat 400 AT V w ith a water-c ooled engi ne. T his AT V w as tested in the sam e w ay 1 the H onda

A T V w as te ste d.4

On the basis of these tests, B urleson conclud ed that the Honda AT V w as unreasonablydangerous. H is data for the H onda AT V showe d that tem peratures - - at least for som e tim e -- inside the bo ot exceeded the tem perature that c auses bur ns. B ur le son ac know le dge d th at ape rs on w ithse nsa tio n inhis f ee t c oul d avoi d inj ur y by sim ply m ovi ng h is f

ee t ou t of harm ’ s w ay

in re spon se to the hig h te m pe ratur es . B ut h e sa id the H onda A T V gave no w ar

nin g in dic at ionto a pe rs on l i k e P l a i n t i f

f - - w i t h n o s e n s a t i o n i n h i s f e e t- - w h e n th e t e mp e r a tu r e s b e c a me dange ro usl y

hig h. B ur le son al so o pin ed that the A rc tic Cat A T V pr ovi de d a vi ab le alt ern at iv e d es ig n t ha t co ul d h av e p rev en te d o r reduc edPla in ti ff’s in jury. Burl es on’ s dataf

or the A rc tic Cat A T V f

ro m the Jul y te st p ur porte d to sho w te m pe ratur es ins ide the boo t tha t w er e ins uf fi ci en t t o c au se bur

ns. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xc lud ed Burl es on’ s te sti m ony

und er D au be rt v. Me rr el l D owP harm ac eu tic al s, I nc . , 113 S
. Ct
. 278 6 ( 1993 ), c onc lud ing that the te sti m ony
wa s the product of an unreliable m ethodo logy
. The district court also excluded part of the te sti m ony

giv enby P la int if f’ s tr eatin g ph y sic ians, w ho t es tif ie d a bout causation, because they

we re not tim ely

disclosed as experts un der Fe d. R. Civ. P
. 26 (a)( 2) (A).5

A ft er e xc lud ing thi s te sti m ony , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t to D ef en dants be ca

use P la int if

f fa ile d to pr oduc e ev ide nc e of de fe ct , a lte rn at ive de sig n, or c au sa tio n. P la int if

f ap pe al ed
.
II. Standard of R eview

W e re view a district court’ s decision to exclude expert testim ony under D au be rt f or abuse of dis cr et ion
. G en . E le c. Co
. v. Joi ne r, 118 S
. Ct
. 512 , 515 (1 997)
. U nde r thi s st an dard , thi s C ourt de fe rs to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng unle ss i t is m an if es tly e rr one ous. Q uie t T ec h. D C- 8, I nc . v. H ur el -D uboi s U K L td. , 326 F. 3d 13 33, 1340 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). W e also reviewfor abuse of discre tion a decision to exclude expert testim ony for f ailure to disclose as required under Rule 26. S ee P rieto v. Ma lgor, 361 F.3d 131 3, 1317 (11th Cir. 2004 ). Finally , w e re view a grant of sum m ary j udgm en t de nov o, c onstru ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the
no nm ov an t. Ro

jas v . Flo rid a, 28 5 F .3d13 39 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ).

II I. D isc uss ion6 A
. Burl es on’ s te sti m ony

We f i rs tco n s i d erth e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n t o ex cl u d e B u rl es o n ’s testim ony under Da ubert. F ed. R . E vid. 702 go verns the adm issio n of expert te sti m ony in fe de ra l c ourt: If sc ie nti fi c, te ch nic al , or

oth er spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge w ill a ssi st the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determ ine a fa ct in issue, a w itness qu alified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experie nce, tr ai nin g, or

e duc at ion , m ay

te sti fy the re to i n th e fo rm

of a n op ini on o r otherwise, if (1) the testim ony is based upo n sufficient facts or data , (2 ) the te sti m ony

is the pr oduc t of

r el ia ble pr inc ipl es a nd m ethods , an d ( 3) the w itn es s ha s a

ppl ie d th e pr inc ipl es a nd m ethods r el ia bly to the facts of the c ase. D istri ct c ourts h av e a duty

und er Ru le 702 to “ en sur e that any a nd a ll sc ie nti fi c testim ony or evidence adm itted is no t onlyrelevant, but reliable.” D aubert, 113 S. Ct. at 2795. The propon ent of expert testim ony bears the burden of showing that the e xpe rt ’ s m ethodo log y is re lia ble
. U nit ed

S ta te s v. F ra zi er , 387 F
. 3d 1 244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004). InD au be rt , the S upr em e Co urt se t ou t f our non -e xc lus ive c ri te ri a fo r reliability determ ination s: “ (1) w hether the expert’ s m ethodo logyhas been tested or is capable of being tested; (2) w hether the technique has been sub j ected to peer
r e v i e wan dp ub l i c a t i o n ; ( 3 ) th e kn o w n a n dp o t e n t i a l e rr o r r a t e o f th e met h o d o l o g y;
an d ( 4) w he the r the te ch nique ha s be enge ne ra lly a cc ep te d inthe pr ope r sc ie nti fi cBur leson’s fa ilure to link his temperature rea dings f rom the dummy foot to his ex trapolations 2 a bout P lai nt iff

’s inj ur ie s p re se nts ano the r D a ub e rt pr ob le m: whe n a

n e xpe rt ’s data

is n ot d ir e c tly 7 co m m uni ty . ” Mc D ow el l v. Br ow n, 392 F
. 3d 1 283, 129 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( ci tin g Daub er t , 1 1 3 S. Ct . a t2 7 9 6 -9 7 ). Th es e f ac t o rs m ay g u i d e a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s
re lia bil ity inquir y , but the dis tr ic t c ourt ul tim at el y ha s “br oa d latit

ude w he n it de ci de s ho wto de te rm ine r el ia bil ity
. ” K

um ho T ir e Co
. v. Carm ic ha el , 119 S
. Ct
. 1167 , 117 1 ( 1999 ). W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in ex cl ud in g B ur le so n’s t es ti m on y . Su b s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s co n cl u s i o n th at Bu rl es o n ’s
me t h o d o l o g y w a s u n r e l i ab l e . F i r s t , h e o b t a i n e dh i s t e mp e r a tu r e r e a d i n g s f r o m a p l as t i c d u m

m y re i n fo rc ed wi t h m et al b ar s ra t h erth an fr o m a h u m an b ei n g . We recognize he m ay

have had valid safety

rea sons for using a dumm y instead of a hum an . B ut B ur le son pr oduc ed no d at a show ing that the c ondu ct ive a nd h eatret en ti ve pro pe rti es of t he du m m y ’s foo t wer e si m il ar t o t ho se of a hu m an foo t. N or did he sho war el ia

ble w ay to ex tr ap olate f

ro m the te m pe ratur e re ad ing s on th e dumm

y ’s foo t t o t he co m

pa rab le tem

pe rat ur es on a hu m an foo t. A s ar es ult , Burl es on p ro vid ed no r el ia ble li nk b etw ee n hi s dataa nd the fa ct s a t i ssu e in the c as e: the te m pe ratur e Pl ai nti ff

’ s f ee t e xpe ri en ce d w hil e ri din g the Honda AT V and the tem perature his fe et w ouldhave experienced had he been ri din g th e A rc tic Cat A T V
. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as e nti tle d to e xc lud e 2re le va

nt to t he matte r at is su e in a

c a se , th e e xpe rt ’s te sti mony do e s n ot a ssi st the tr ie r o f f a c t and is there fore inadmissible under Da ubert. See Daube rt, 113 S. Ct. at 2796 (termingthis a problem of “fit,” a nd stating that Rule 702 “requir es a va lid scientific conne ction to the pertinent inquiry”). For instance, dur ing the J uly

test, the exterior left boottemperature re adingat 2625 sec onds was 3 217.18 deg ree s Fa

hrenhe it. The next reading-- fiftee n seconds late r -- was 172.7 E F, r epre senting a sw ingof 44 .4 8 d e g re e s. 8 Burl es on’ s te sti m ony . S ee Ri nk v
. Ch em ino va , I nc . , 400 F
. 3d 1 286, 129 2 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ) (a ffirm ing exclusi on of testim ony from expert w ho extrapolated te m pe ratur e da taf

ro m T ex as to G eo rg iaa nd F lor ida “ be ca use sto ra ge c ondi tio ns
we re supposedl y

sim ilar and the sites we re a ll in the sam e basic latitudinal range”
an d e xpr es sin g th at

“ [t ] ranspo sit ionof

da taba se d onsuc h c onj ec tur e an d r ough approxim ation lacks the ‘ intellectual rigor’ required by Da ubert”). Second, B urleson’s tests fa iled to control o r ac count for alternative sources of tem perature var iation. H e conducted the tests ou tdoo rs w here the A TV s wer e exposed to fluctuating am bient tem peratures. Burleson’ s tem perature
m easurem ents fluctuated sign ificantly through out hi s tests, and he testified that 3 thi s dy na m ic f luc tuatio n w as due to ch an ge s inthe w ind
. I n th e Jul y te st, the start ing a m

bie nt t em pe ratur e fo r the A rc tic Cat w as te n de gr ee s le ss than th at of the Honda, and the average am bient tem perature w as lower

for the A rctic C at as
w el l. Y et de spi te the c onst an t f

luc tuatio n inBurl es on’ s te m pe ratur e re ad ing s, Plaintiff has offe red no evidence showing that Burleson account ed for - - or r uled
ou t -- th e eff

ectth e am

bi en t t em pe rat ur e m ay

ha ve ha d o n t he read in gs .Bur leson could have either conducte d his te sts in a controlled environment wher e th e heat 4 g ener ated by

the ATVs would be the only varia ble or, a lternatively , acc ounted in some way for the va ri atio ns in am

bie nt co nd iti on s to show that th e va ri atio n d id n ot v iti ate his te st r e su lts . We no te that Bur leson’s methodolog y was not unre liable simply beca use h is tests were c onducted outside. Th e re may

have be e n g oo d r e a so ns for th e outdo or te sts : f or e xamp le , it

a llo we d B ur le so n to simulate the field conditions under w h ic h Pl a intiff used the Honda

ATV. Honda ’s experts conducte d t es t s i n a fi el d for the sa

me re ason. B ut Plainti ff ha s the burden of provingthat Bur leson either reliably acc ounted for the impact of ambient t emper ature variation or demonstrated that the variation did not vitiate his ultimate conclusions. See United States v. Fr azier, 387 F .3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 200 4 ) (“ The propone nt of expert testimony alway s bear s the burden to show that . . . the methodology

by which the expert rea ch[ed] his conclusions is suf ficiently reliable . . . .”) ( alteration in orig inal) (c itation and quotation marks omitted). Nea r t he end of t he test, the t emper ature inside the l eft boot reache d its max imum of 173.3 E F, 5 but at that same time, the tempe rature outside the left boot was more than 26 degree s lower. 9 Burleson’ s failure to control or acc ount for the f luctuating am

bient tem peratures
c a s t s s e r i o u s d o ub to n th e r e l i ab i l i t y o f h i s met h o d o l o g y. 4 Third, the tem

perature r eadings from

the Septem

ber test re vealed an ir re gul ar ity
. F or

the la tte r ha lf

of the te st, the te m

pe ratur e ins ide the le ft

boo t exceeded the tem

perature outside the left boot even tho ugh th e outside of the left boot w as c los er

to the sourc e of

the he at . 5 Burl es on e xpl ai ne d th at

thi s ir re gul ar ity c oul d be due to ana cc um ulatio n of h ea t . B u tth i s ex p l an at i o n ap p ea rs i n t ern al l y i n co n s i s t en twi t h Bu rl es o n ’s Septem ber re adings from

the right boo t, where the outside tem peratures w ere high er than the inside tem peratures. A nd bo th of the dumm y ’ s feet w ere dressed in the sam e boot s and s oc ks. F urthe rm or e, in the Jul y te st, the out sid eW e c an n o tco mp ar e t h e S ep t em b er l ef t -b o o ti rr e g u l ar i ty

t o th e l ef t -b o o tt emp er ature re ad i n gs 6 from the J uly test beca

use, during that test, the t emper ature probe inside the left boot malfunc tioned. Plaintiff contends that a c ourt may not exclu d e ex pert testimony on the basis of the e x pert’s 7 conclusions an d t h at , wh en it does, it usurps the role of the jur y . Although the district court’s decision to exclude Bur leson’s testimony was partially , but not wholly , based on its observations of problems and inconsistenc ies with Bur leson’s t emper ature rea dings -- such as the irr egularity of the left boot’s interior a

nd exterior temperature duringthe September test -- the district c ourt was permitted to examine Bur leson’s data to assess the re liability

of his methodology . See Joi ner, 118 S. Ct . at 519 (notingthat “conc lusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one anothe r” and sa ying“ [a] c ourt

may c on c lud e tha

t th e re is sim

ply too g re at an a

na ly tic a l g a p b e tw e e n th e data and the opinion proff

ere d”). We r e c ognize that, b y

its e lf , a n e xpe rt ’s fa ilure to a c c ount f or e ve ry a lte rn ativ e c a

us e wi ll u su a lly 8 “af fec t the analy sis’ probativene ss, not its admissibili ty .” See Bazemore v. Frida y , 106 S. Ct . 3000, 30 08 -0 9 & n. 10 (1 98 6) (B re nn an, J., jo ine d b y a ll o the r M e mbe rs of

the Court , c on c ur

ri ngin p art ) (r e je c tin gpr op os iti on “ that pe tit ion e rs ’ re g re ssi on ana ly se s w e re un a c c e pta

ble
. . . b e c a

us e the y did no t in c lud e a ll me a sura

ble va ri a ble s, ” but no tin g an e xce pti on fo r “ re g re ssi on s so inc omp le te a s to be inadmissible” (inter

nal quotation marks omitted)). B ut Bu rl es o n ’s failure to control for signif ic ant a lte rn ativ e so ur c e s of te mpe ratur e va ri atio n is e sp e c ia lly pr ob le matic in t his c a se be c a

us e the number of

trials in Bur leson’s t ests was so low. He perfor med onl y two trials of the Honda

ATV

-- on e in Jul y

and on e in S e pte mbe r -- and ne ith e r wa s see min g ly fr e e of pr ob le ms: duri ngthe July test , t h e thermocouple inside the lef t boot malfunctioned, and dur ing the September te st, the te mpe ratur e re a din g s in sid e the le ft bo ot w e re a

bn or ma lly highe r tha

n outsi de the le ft

bo ot. Thus , Bur leson perf

ormed no e rror -fr ee te st of the Honda A TV that is centr al to this case. 10 te m pe ratur es of

the r igh t bo ot w er e hig he r than th e ins ide te m pe ratur es . W ithno

6 reliable explanation for the abnorm al rea ding s from the Septem

ber test of the lef

t boot , the dis tr ic t c ourt w as e nti tle d to c al l B ur le son’ s m ethodo log y int o qu es tio n. 7 N ot o nly did Burl es on c ondu ct

his te sts on a

pla sti c dum

m y w ith out pr ovi din g ar el ia

ble li nk t o th e fa ct s of

thi s c as e, his te sts r ev ea l si gni fi cant
unc ontro lle d and une xpl ai ne d vari ab le s. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s discretion in exclud ing Burleson’s testim ony because his m ethodo logywa s unreliable. 811 B. S um m ar y Jud gm en t

A ft er e xc lud ing Burl es on’ s te sti m ony , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xc lud ed som e of the testim ony

of Plaintiff’ s treating phy sicians and then g ranted sum m ary j udgm ent to Def

endants. E ven assum ing th e district court im properly excluded the tr eatin g ph y sic ian te sti m ony , w e co nc lud e that sum m ar y j udgm en t w as sti ll proper. U nde r the A la

ba m a E xte nde d M anuf

ac tur er ’ s L ia

bil ity D oc tr ine (“ A E ML D ”) , apla int if

f m ust pr ove that “ (1 ) the de fe ndant m anuf ac tur er sol d a de fe ct ive pr oduc t, ( 2) the de fe ct w as the c au se in fa ct

of the pla int if

f' s in j ur y and i s tr ac ea ble to the de fe ndant, and ( 3) the pr oduc t r ea ch ed the pla int if

f w ith out subs tanti al m odi fi catio n to the c ondi tio n inw hic h it w as sol d. ” G or ee v. W inn eb ag o I ndus
. , I nc . , 958 F
. 2d 1 537, 154 1 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) ( ci tin g S ears , Ro eb uc k & Co ., Inc . v. Hav en Hil ls Farm , Inc ., 39 5 S o.2 d 9 91 , 99 4 (Al a. 19 81 )). A de fe ct ive pr oduc t i s apr oduc t tha t i s “ ‘ unr ea sona bly dange ro us, ’ i. e. , not fit for its intended purpo se.” G oree, 958 F.2d at 1541 (quo ting Casrell v. A ltec In dus. , I nc . , 335 S o. 2d 1 28, 133 ( A la
. 197 6) ). T o sh owthat a pr oduc t i s de fe ct ive
un de r th e AEMLD, a plaintiff m

ust prov e that a saf

er, practica l, a lternative design was av ai la ble to the m anuf

ac tur er a t the ti m e it m anuf

ac tur ed the12

[p ro duc t]
. T he e xis te nc e of asa fe r, pr ac tic al , a lte rn at ive de sig n m ust be pr ove d by

sho w ing that: (a) The plaintiff' s injuries w ouldhave been elim inated or in som e w ay reduced by

use of the alternative design; and that (b )
. . . the uti lity

of the a lte rn at ive de sig n ou tw ei ghe d th e uti lity of the de sig n a ct

ua lly use d. H an nah v. G re gg, Bl an d & Be rr y , I nc . , 840 S o. 2d 8 39, 858 ( A la
. 200 2) ( al te ratio n in origin al) (e m

phasis o m itted) (internal citations and quo tation m arks om itted). Asi de fro m

Bu rle so n’s t es ti m on y

ab ou t t he Arct ic CatATV -- whi ch we have concluded was properly excluded -- Pla intiff produced no evid ence of a
sa fe r, pr ac tic al , a lte rn at ive de sig n. Plaintiff did argue that a heat shield or fan could have resulted in a safer de sig n, but

the se arg um en ts w er e spe cu la tiv e. P la int if f co nduc te d no te sts w itha he at shi el d or f anand p ro duc ed

no e vid en ce that the se opt ion s w oul d have lowere d the tem

perature in the H onda AT V’ s footwells. W ith no evidence of a practical a lternative design th at w ouldhave elim inated or in som e w ay reduced Pl ai nti ff ’ s in j ur ie s, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t un de r the AEMLD.13 IV
. Co nc lus ion

For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm the district court’ s grant of summ ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Defen da nt s. AFFIR MED.