### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-2452

E MP I RE B UC KE T

, I N C ., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

C ONTR A CTORS C ARG O C OMPANY , Defen dant-Appellant.

Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the

Western Di stric t o f Wi sconsi n. No. 12 -CV- 23 3 — Will ia m M. Conle y , Chief Judg e.

A RGU E D O C TOB E R 31, 2013

— D E C I D E D J ANU AR Y 15, 2014

Before B AU E R

, M ANI ON

, and R OVN E R

, Circ uit Judges.
M ANI ON , Cir cui t Judge. Contr actor s Carg o Comp a ny engaged Empi re Bucket, Inc., to fabri cate a stee l r a ilc ar deck. After the deck fractured, Contr actor s Carg o refused to pay the full purchas e pric e and Empi re Bucket sued for breach of the contract. Contr actor s Carg o countersued for bre a ch e s of the contract, the i mpli ed w arr anty of merchantabi li ty , and the i mpl ie d warr anty of fi tness for a particu lar purpose. Pri or to tr i al, the di stric t court gr anted Emp ire Bucket’s motion in2 No. 13-2452
limin e to exclude any testim ony concerning one of the tests p e rfor med on the deck after i t fai led. The jury returned a
v erdic t fo r Empi re Bucket. Contr actor s Carg o appeals. W e affi rm. I. Facts
Contr actor s Carg o Company , a tr ansportat i on bus iness engaged in heavy-haul oper ations thro ughout th e U ni ted St ates, commi ssi oned Empi re Bucke t, I nc., to fabri cate a steel railca r deck to be used wi th Contr actor s Carg o’s Schnabel railca r

— a speci ali zed railroad freight car for tr ansporting heavy and ov ersi zed loads. Contr a ct or s Carg o hi red a thi rd party to desi gn the deck. The desi gns speci fi ed that the deck be fabri cated from T

-1 hi gh-strengt h steel and that the welding be perfor med pursuant to Americ an W elding So ci ety sp e cifi cations

. The deck w as desi gned to attach to the Schnabel car and to tr ansport up to an 800,000-po und load. Empi re Bucket fabri cated the deck, which p a ssed inspec tion by an outsi de agency and all nondestructi v e tests, and deli v ered i t. Contr actor s Carg o connected the deck to it s Schnabel railc ar and loaded i t to approx i mately 820,000 pounds. The next mornin g,
an employ ee observ ed that the deck had dropped about three inches ov ernight. Contr actor s Carg o atte mpted to rais e t he d e ck wi th a hydrauli c jacking system, but the deck fractured during the at tempt. Contr actor s Carg o hi red a metallurgic al engin eer , Josh Schw antes, to deter mine why the d e ck had fractured. Schw antes deter mined tha t the deck contained an inclu

si on—whi ch in thi s case meant a port i on of the w eld w as composed of material wi th proper ties di fferent from theNo. 13-2452 3

proper ties of the material in the rest of the w eld. The inclu si on
w as approx i mately 1/10th of an inch in length at the location where the crack or i gin ated. Schw antes also perfor med v arious t ests on the deck, inclu ding a “Charpy v-notch i mpact t e st

. ” Thi s test showed that the material aro und the inclu si on had low fracture to ug hn e ss, whi ch meant that the w eld material

w as more bri ttle than expected. The deck pass ed all other nondestructi v e and destructi v e tests for the purposes of sati sfying Americ an W

elding So ci ety speci fi cati ons. 1
Based on thi s testing, Contr actor s Carg o conclu ded that the deck fai led becau se Empi re Bucket did not proper ly fabri cate i t. Thus, Contractor s Cargo refused to pay Empi re Buc ket the full purchas e pric e

. E mpire Bucket sued in Wi scons in state court for breach of contract. Contr actor s Carg o removed the acti on to federal di stric t court and fi led v arious counterclai ms, inclu ding claims for breaches of the contract, the i mpli ed

w arr anty of merchantabi li ty , a nd the i mpli ed w arr anty of fi tness for a part i cular purpose.
Pri or to tr i al, Empi re Bucket fi led a nu mb er of motions in limin e, inclu ding a motion to exclude any testim ony reg ardin g the Charpy i mpact test perfor med o n the deck. Americ an W elding So ci ety standards prov i de that i f a p r oj ect i s to be

w elded to Charp y t o ug hness cri ter i a, that cri ter i a mus t be speci fi ed in the contract documents. Thus, Empi re Bucket arg ued, the Charpy i mpact test w as i rr e l e v a nt becau se the parties’ contract di d not speci fy any Charpy toug hness cri ter i a.

As the term suggests, destructi v e tests are carri ed out to the poi nt tha t the 1 test subjec t fai l s. The Charpy i mpact test is a de structi v e test.4 No. 13-2452
The di stric t court di rected Contr actor s Carg o to proffer i ts propo sed testim ony regar ding the Charpy impac t te st and i ts relev ance to Cont racto rs Carg o’s clai ms. Contr actor s Carg o explained that i t di d not intend to offer testim ony reg ardin g the Charpy i mpact test perfor med on the deck for the purpose of demonstrating that the p a rti e s ’ c ontract required the deck to pass such testing. (Indeed, Contr actor s Carg o sti pulated that the contract di d not r equi re the deck to sati sfy any Charpy toug hness cri ter i a.) Rather , Contr actor s Carg o stated that i t intended to offer testim ony concerning the Charpy i mpact testing to establi sh that the w eld material at the location of the inclusion had low fracture toug hness (that i s, that i t was unus ually b rittle). And the test indi cating bri ttleness supp or ted Contr actor s Carg o’s exper ts’ conclu si on that the

w eld containing the in clus i on w as the caus e and o rigin o f t he deck’s failu re, whi ch in turn su p p o rt ed the i mpli ed w arr anty clai ms. In ruling on Empi re Bucket’s motion in limin e, t he di stric t court focus ed almost entirely upon Contra c to rs Carg o’s breach of contract clai m. The di stric t court remark ed that there “may be a better case for admi tting ... testim ony about the caus e of the deck fai lure fo r t he p urposes of di scu ssing a breach of i mpli ed warr anty theor y , as the actual perfor manc e of the deck mi ght then be relev a nt to whether i t w as adequate for the gener al or speci fi c purposes for whi ch i t was bui lt.” Nonetheless, the di stric t court observ ed that “the li abi li ty que st io n at i ssu e in thi s ca se i s not whether or why the deck fai led, but whether the deck sati sfi ed the ter ms of the cont r a ct

. ” The di str ict court conclu ded that the testim ony reg ardin g the Charpy i mpact test w as i rr elev ant a nd gr anted Empi reNo. 13-2452 5
Bucket’s motion in li mine to bar testim ony reg ardin g that t est at the liabi li ty phase of the t rial.
How ev er

, at tr i al the di stric t court cla r i fi ed that only speci fi c refer ences to the Ch a r p y impac t test w ere barred. General refer ences to the w eld material’s “bri t t l e ne ss” or “toug hness ” w ere other wi se admi ssi ble. Consequently

, Contr actor s Carg o’s experts were per mi tte d to testif y regar ding the low fracture toug hness (that i s, bri ttleness) of the mat erial at the location of the inclu si on in the w eld. For instance, Duan e Gi lbert, an exper i enced w elder who quali fi ed

as an exper t in the areas of w elding, fit t ing, and quali ty

assu rance and contro l, testifi ed that a w eld can become bri ttle i f “the heat input i s too hi gh.” He testifi ed further that the deck failed at the inclu si on becau se i t had a “bri ttle fracture.” Speci fi cally

, Gi lbert explain ed, the crack in the deck or i gin ated at the inclu sion becau se i t w as the w eak point in the bri ttle

w eld material. Sim i larly , Sch w a ntes, who quali fi ed as an exper t in metallurgic al fai lure analysi s an d s ta ti c, d yn a m i c, and fati gue mechani cal testing, testifi ed that the d e ck suffered from

a “bri ttle fracture,” whi ch he defined as “a fracture that occurs below the yiel d strengt h of the material.” He explain ed that 2 hi s testim ony w as drawn from init i al observ ations that w ere confi rmed “[b] ased o n t he a naly si s w e had per formed, based

on met a l logr aphy and some of the other test results.” Schw antes conclu ded that the inclu si on w as the “prim ary fact o r ” in the deck’s fai lure, and that the deck’s fracture w as si mi lar to “a tex tboo k case for a bri ttle fracture.” Nonetheless,

S c hw antes explained tha t “brittl eness” i s the opp osi te of “duc til i ty” or 2 the “measure o f a material ’s, l et’s say, el astic o r capacity to fo rm.”6 No. 13-2452
the jury ret urned a v erdic t for Empi re Buc k e t

. Contr actor s Carg o appeals. II. Disc uss ion
On appeal, Contr actor s Carg o arg ues that the di stric t court

err ed in excluding as i rr elev ant speci fi c r e ferences to the Charpy i mpact test perfor med on the deck. Eviden ce i s relev ant i f i t ha s any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than i t w ould be wi thout the evidenc e, and the fact i s of consequen ce in deter mining the acti on. Fe d. R. Evid. 401. Where a di stric t court gr ants a motion in limin e and e x cl udes evidenc e under Rule 401, we rev i ew the di stric t court’s ruling under an abus e of di screti on standard. Thompson v

. C i ty of Chicago , 472 F .3d 444, 453 (7th Ci r . 2006). 3
Contr actor s Car go co nt e nd s t hat the di stric t court abus ed i ts disc r e t i on in excluding as i rr elev ant speci fi c refer ences to the Charpy i mpact test perfor med on the deck becau se the test

w as relev ant to Contr actor s Carg o’s clai ms for breaches of the i mpli ed warr anty of merchantabi li ty and the i mpli ed w arr anty of fi tness for a particu lar purpose. Under Wi scons in law ,

Contractors Cargo argues tha t the di stric t cour t ab used i ts di screti on b y 3 merel y consi deri ng Empi re Bucket’s moti on in limine be c au se the moti on
wa s f i l ed nine days after the fi rst sub missi on deadl i ne. This argument i s witho ut meri t. A moti on in limineis merel y a “pre tri al request tha t certain i nadmissible evidence not b e refe rred to or of fere d at tri al.” Bl ac k ’ s L aw Dicti onary 11 09 (9 th ed. 20 09 ). The di stric t cour t retains the power to mak e evidenti ary rul i ngs throughout the tri al. Indeed, adi stric t court m ay even adjust i ts di sposi tio n of a mo t i on in limine duri ng the cour se of a tri al. Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Trust of Chicag o , 43 3 F.3d 55 8, 56 5 (7 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Furthermore , C o ntractors Cargo do es not contend tha t i t was unfairl y di sadv ant aged b y the sli ght tardiness of Empi re Bucket’s moti on in limine

.No. 13-2452 7

“ [u ]nles s ex clud ed or modi fi ed ..., a w arr anty that the g o o d s shall be merchantable i s i mpli ed in a co nt ract for their sale i f the seller i s a merchant wi th respect to goo ds of th a t k ind

. ” W i s. St at. § 402.314. The goo ds, inter alia, mus t be “fi t for t he

or dinary purposes for whi ch such goo ds are used.” Id. Wi sconsin law also prov i des that “ [w ]h e r e the seller at the tim e of contracting has reason to know any p a r t icular purpose for whi ch the go ods are requi red and that the buyer i s rely ing on the seller’s ski ll or judgment to select or furni sh sui table goo ds, there i s unles s excluded or mo d ified

... an i mpli ed w arr anty t ha t the goo ds shall be fi t for such purpose.” Wi s. St at. § 402.315.
In opposing Empi re Bucket’s motion in limin e, Contr actor s Carg o explained that i t intended to offer testim ony concerning th e Charpy i mpact testing to establi sh that the w eld material used at the location of the inclu si on had low fracture toug hness (that i s, that i t was unus ually bri ttle). According to Contr actor s Carg o’s exper ts, the finding that the w eld materia l a t the location of the inclu si on w as bri ttle supp or ted their conclu si on that the w eld containing the inclu si on w as the caus e and or i gin of the deck’s fa ilu r e. In turn, thi s conclu si on supp or ted the inference that Empi re Bucket failed to fabri cate the deck such that i t w as “fi t for the or dinary purposes for whi ch such” decks

are used or fi t for the “particu lar purpose for whi ch” Contr acto rs C a rg o or d e re d the d e c k. Consequently , Contr actor s Carg o 4

On appeal, Co ntractors Cargo do es not expli ci tly articul ate the “o rdi nary 4 purpo se” or known “parti cul ar purpo se” that the dec k all egedl y fail ed to achieve. But we think the purpo se fair l y obv i ous—namely, tha t the deck (co ntinued. ..)8 No. 13-2452

arg ues, the results of the Charpy i mpact test perfor med on the deck make i t mor e probable that Empi re Bucketbreached the i mpli ed w arr anty of merchantabi li ty or the i mpli ed w arr anty of fi tness for a particu lar purpose. How ev er , w e need not—and do not—deci de whether the di stric t court abus ed i ts di screti on when i t excluded speci fi c refer ences to the Charpy i mpact test becau se any err or w ould be harmless

. An err or i s harmless if i t does not affec t the complaining party ’s substanti al rights. Fed. R. Ci v . P . 61; Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F .3d 919, 930 (7th Ci r

. 201 2 ). W e w ould not find that Contr actor s Carg o’s sub stantia l rights w ere affec ted unles s there was a si gni fi cant chan ce that the exclusi on of speci fi c refer ences to the Charpy i mpact test affec ted the outcome of the tr i al. Whitehead, 680 F .3d at 930. There i s no si gni fi cant chanc e that the exclusi on of speci fi c refer ences to the Charpy i mpact test affec ted the outcome of the tr i al. As di scu ssed a bov e, the Charpy i mpact test per
formed o n t he deck w as relev ant to Contr actor s Carg o’s i mpli ed warr anty clai ms only to the ext ent the results showed that the material in t he l o cati on of the inclu si on had low toug hness (that i s, that i t w as unusua l l y br i ttle). But at tr i al, Contr actor s Carg o’s exper ts testifi e d repeat edly that the material in the location of the inclu si on w as bri ttle. Mor eov er , Schw antes testifi ed that the exper ts knew the material near the inclu si on w as bri ttle based on observ ations from the ini tial inspec tion o f the deck and the “analysi s w e had perfor med,

( ...c onti nued) 4 woul d transport up to an 800 ,00 0- pound l oad wi thout fai l i ng.No. 13-2452 9
based on metallogr aphy and some of the other test results[.]” 5 C ontractor s Carg o’s exper ts only w ere barred from speci fi c a l ly i denti fying the Charpy i mpact test. Thi s i s not the exclusi on of

sc ie nt i fi c evidenc e but of a sci entifi c label. Cf. Falana v

. Ke n t S ta te Univ

. , 669 F .3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Ci r

. 2012) (findin g exclusi on of exhib i ts to be ha rmless err or where the relev ant sub stance of the exhib i ts w as oth e rwi se admi tte d); Cook v

. Nav i s tar Int’l T

ransp. Corp. , 940 F .2d 207, 213 (7th Ci r

. 199 1 ) (finding exc lu s i on of indus tr y publi cati ons to be harmless err or where “ t he sub stance of” the publi cati ons w as other wi se admi tte d).
Contr actor s Carg o poin ts out that it s exper ts w ere also barred from testif

yin g about the preci se fracture toug hness

v alues of the material at the location of the inclu si on gener ated by the Charpy i mpact test. Howev er , whi le the precis e v alues of the material’s to ughnessw ould be i mport ant for establi shing that the deck fai led to sati sfy particu lar Charpy toug hness cri ter i a (a theor y Contr actor s Carg o e x p r e ssly di scl ai ms) , in thi s case the Charpy i mpact test perfor med on the deck i s only relev ant to Contr actor s Carg o’s i mpli ed w arr anty clai ms to the ext ent the test shows that the material at the lo ca t io n o f the inc l usi on was bri ttle. No di spute about the speci fi c degree o f bri ttleness was presented to the jury

. Indeed, Contr actor s Carg o’s proffer does not inclu de any atte mpt to show that the

Schwantes’ testimo ny, tha t the concl usio ns ab out the materi al’s 5 b ri ttle ness were b ased on metall ographi c ana l ysis and other testing, b el i es Co ntractors Cargo’s argument tha t i ts experts were depr i v ed of the “ba dge of scie nce” when testifying tha t the materi al around the i nc l u si o n was b ri ttle

. Mo reo v er, Schwantes and Gil b ert’s extens i v e qua l i fi c atio ns were descri b ed to the j ury pri or to the experts’ respe cti v e testi mony.10 No. 13-2452 preci se fracture toughness v alues of the material at the location meant that the deck w ould only be able to supp or t a particu lar

w ei ght li mi t that fe l l be l ow the w ei ght li mi t the deck w as desi gned to han d l e

. Ra the r , C ontr a c to rs C a rg o’ s e xp e rt s merely testifi ed that the bri ttleness of the material at the location of the inclu si on supp or t e d the conclu si on that the w eld containing the inclu si on w as the caus e and or i gin of the deck’s fai lure. Consequently

, there i s no si gni fi cant chanc e that the minor evidenti ary li mi tati on im p os e d b y the d i stric t court affec ted the outcome of the t rial. III. Conclusi on In li ght of the testim ony admi tte d at tr i al, t he excluded evidenc e reg ardin g the Charpy i mpact test w ould hav e added li ttle to Contr actor s Carg o’s case for i ts i mpli ed w arr anty clai ms. Becaus e any err or w ould be harmless, w e AFF IRM the judgment o f the di stric t court

.