FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T SEPT EMBER 12, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 09 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9– cv -0 05 70 -VEH ROEL VAUGHN, JEAN VAUGHN, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC., su cces so r by m erg er t o HYSTER COM PANY, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 12 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Thi s i s a p ro du ct s l iabi li ty case. Ro el Vaug hn was i nju redon th e job whi leop erat in g aforkl iftm anuf actur edby H y st er Co m

pa ny, Inc. Vau gh n t he reaf te r br ou gh t thi s ac ti on ag ai ns t Hy st er. He all eg edth atHy st er was li ab le forhi s 1 in juri es un de r th e Alaba m a Ext en de d M anur actur ers ’ Liab il it y Doctrin e an d fo r br each in g i ts pu rp orte d i m pl ie d warran ti es of m erch an tabi li ty andfit ne ss fora pa rti cu la r pu rp os e. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Hystersu m m ary jud gm en t af

te r
ex cl ud in g, o n Hyster ’s m ot io n, t he op in io ns of Vaug hn ’s two ex pe rt wi tn es se s. Mem or an du m

Opi ni on da te d Dec em

be r 3, 2 01 0. Vau gh n app eal s t he su m

m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e o pi ni on s o f hi s ex pe rts an d e rredin gra nt in g
su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se m at eri al is su es of f actrem ai ne d t o b e li ti ga te d wi th
res pe ctto hi s b reac h o f im pl ie d warran ty clai m s. We affirm . The d is tri ctco urt, i n i ts ord er g ran ti ng Hy st er s umm ary jud gm en t, de sc rib edho w Vaug hn ’s in jury occu rred , acco rd in g t o Vau gh n: Mr. Vau gh n was em

pl oyed b y Fed eral Mo gu l Co rp or at io n a s a m at eri al s h an dl er an d was pe rfo rm in g h is job du ti es at i ts Ja ck so nv il le , Alab am a p la ntwhen th e subjec t ac ci de ntoc curredon Mar ch 2, 2 00 7. Th e acc id en t o ccu rredwhi le [Mr.] Vaug hn was op erat in g aHy st er “ st an dup” fork l ifttru ck , whi ch he ha d re gu larly op erat edsi nc e Dece m

be r of 20 04 . Accor di ng to [Mr.] Vaug hn , he m an eu ve redth e li ft tru ckin to anais le , andst op pe d t he ve hi cl e to th e le ft o f so m e sh el ve s co nt ai ni ng au to m ot iv e p art s. [M r.] Vau gh n t he n Vaughn’s wifejoined him as a plaintiff, a ssertinga derivative claim for loss of 1 consortium. 2lo ok eddo wn an d t o h is rig htto wardtwo pa ll et s o n t he flo or , to lo cat e

pa rts he ne ed edto li ft wi th th e truc k andm ov e o nt o ano th er p al le t. Whi le ho ld in g i n h is rig htha nda labe l i de nt ifyin g t he pa rts he ne ed ed to m ov e, [Mr .] Vaug hn lea ne d t o h is rig htto ge t a c lo se r lo okat t he pa ll et s o n t he flo or . [Mr.] Vaug hn do es no t re m em be r ho w far h e le an ed , tes ti fy in g t ha t “ I Ju strem em be r le an in g o ve r.” [M r.] Vau gh n te st ifi edth at“ [o ]ne se co ndI was l oo ki ng at t hi s l ab el , andth e n ex t se co ndI kn ew so m ethi ng ba d h adhapp en ed , andI was turne d l ik e si de way s, an d my

arm was d an gl in g.” [Mr.] Vaug hn ’s rig htarm ap pa ren tl y

st ru cka po rti on of t he sh el vi ng an d was sev erel y in jure d. [Mr .] Vaug hn do es no t kno w ho w th e acc id en t o ccu rred . [Mr.] Vau gh n d oe s n otbe li ev e th atth e v eh ic le m ov edon it s o wn. Mr. Vau gh n i s “ fai rly sure” t ha t an op erat in g m anua l was lo cat edonth e li ft tru ck , bu t h e d oe s n otreca ll read in g i t. In a se ct io n warni ng op erat or s to “us e co m

m on sen se ,” th e o pe rat in g m anua l warne d t ha t o pe rat or s sh ou ld“ [k ]eep arm s, l eg s, an d h eadin si de op erat or ’s com pa rtment.” Mr. Vau gh n a ls o a ckno wled ge d t ha t the re were va rio us warn in g labe ls on th e v eh ic le . [Mr.] Vaug hn tes ti fie d t ha t “ I sa w th em on th ere, an d I’m

su re I re adpa rt o f it , bu t I d on ’t kn ow i f I rea d l et te r fo r le tt er.” Li ke th e o pe rat in g m anua l, the warn in g l ab el s i ns tru ct ed op erat or s t o “ [k ]eep arm s, l eg s an d h eadin si de op erat or ’s co m pa rtment.” In F eb ru ary 20 04 , app ro xi m at el y th ree years p rio r to th e acc id en t, Mr . Vaug hn co m pl et eda Fed eral Mo gu l “ LiftTruc k Ope rat or s Tra in in g C ou rs e Writt enExam .” Inth e “ tru e o r fal se ” po rti on of t he ex am , [Mr.] Vaug hn in di cat edth atth e fo ll owi ng st at em en t was fal se : “ [I]t is OK to ha ve y ou r fee t o r ha nd s o ut si de th e ru nn in g l in es of t he equi pm en t.” [ Mr.] Vaug hn tes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w he co ul d b e in

jure d i f he di d n otke ep hi s arm s i ns id e th e o pe rat or ’s co m pa rtment. The di stric t co urt ex cl ud edth e o pi ni on s o f Vau gh n’s ex pe rt wi tn es se s, Em m et t Gam el an d Th om as Talb ot , un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 7 02 , aft er i t
en ga ge d i n t he ga te ke ep in g fu nc ti on pre sc rib edby D aube rt v . Merr el l Do w Ph arm aceu ti cal s, In c., 50 9 U.S. 5 79 , 11 3 S . Ct. 2 78 6, 1 25 L. Ed.2d46 9 (1 99 3) , 3an d Ku m

ho Tire C o. v . Carm ic ha el , 52 6 U.S. 1 37 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 16 7, 1 43 L. Ed.2d 23 8 (1 99 9) . The co urt fo un d Gam el lac ki ng in “ su ffi ci en t kno wled ge , sk il l,
ex pe rie nc e, tr ai ni ng , or e du cat io n t o re nd er an op in io n c on cern in g t he de si gn or
sa fety featur e d es ig n o f fo rk li ft t ru ck s,” M em . Op. at16 , andth atVaug hn fai le d t o sh ow t ha t the “ m etho do lo gy use d b y Gam el in form

ul at in g h is op in io ns [was ] rel iabl e.” Id . at 2 0. Th e co urt fo un d Tal bo t’s o pi ni on s u nr el iabl e b ecau se , “ li ke Gam el ’s, [th ey

were] no t b as edup on su ffi ci en t fa ct s o r da ta , andbe cau se Talb ot di d n otus e an y

m etho do lo gy in re ach in g h is op in io ns .” Id . Mor eo ve r, as with Gam el ’s op in io ns , Vaug hn “ di d n otad dr es s t he rel iabi li ty of Talb ot ’s tes ti m on y in [h is ] res po ns e” t o Hyster ’s m ot io n t o e xc lu de th e o pi ni on s. Id . at 2 2. “ The y of fere d n o e xp la na ti on , no factua l s up po rt, n o c as e la w, andno arg um en t t o
supp ort a c on cl us io n t ha t the m etho do lo gy use d b y Talb otin form

ul at in g h is op in io ns [was ] rel iabl e.” Id
. The reco rdful ly sup po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s Daube rt f in di ng s an d t hu s i ts de ci si on to ex cl ud e th e ex pe rts ’ op in io ns . Hence , th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng di d n ot
co ns ti tu te anab us e o f di sc ret io n. The di stric t co urt re

jecte d Vau gh n’s cl ai m

th atHy st er b reac he d a n i m pl ie d
warra nt y of f it ne ss fora pa rti cu la r pu rp os e o n t he gro un d t ha t Vau gh n

“ ab an do ne d” th e cl ai m

by notad dr es si ng th e cl ai m inhi s re sp on se to Hy st er’s
4m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Id . at 2 7. We fin d n o e rro r in th e co urt’s ac ti on . The di st ric t co urt re

jecte d Vau gh n’s cl ai m

th atHy st er b reac he d a n i m pl ie d
warra nt y of m erch an tabi li ty becau se , ass um in g t ha t the ex pe rts ’ op in io ns were n ot
ne ed edto m ak e o uta cl ai m , Vaug ha n fa il edto sat is fy th e co urt’s re qu ire m en t tha t, in op po si ng a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, a p arty
m us t . . . pro du ce s ig ni fic an t, p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce d em on st rat in g a ge nu in e is su e [o f m at eri al fact ] fo r tr ia l. In[hi s] res po ns e, [Vau gh n] m erel y no te d t ha t “ Pl ai nt iff

s t es ti m on y

reg ard in g t he un m erch an tabl e qu al ity of t he subjec t fo rk li ft i s . . . su ffi ci en t t o d efea t Def en da nt ’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n.” Altho ug h P la in ti ffs ’ co un se l fi le d M r. Vau gh an ’s dep os it io n, Pl ai nt iff s n ev er ci te d t o any po rti on of t ha t te st im on y as e vi de nc e whi ch wou ldsupp ort thi s cl ai m . . . . . As requi redby App en di x II of t he Uni fo rm Ini ti al Orde r, th e Pl ai nt iff s m us t s up po rt e ach st at em en t o f factwith s pe ci fic refe ren ce t o t ho se po rti on s o f th e ev id en ti ary reco rdth atsupp ort i t. . . . And , as t he Pl ai nt iff s ad m it te d . . . Vaug hn do es no t kno w ho w th e acc id en t oc cu rred
. Id . at 2 8 n .8. We dis cern no erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s re jecti onof t he im

pl ie dwarra nt y -o f-m erch an tabi li ty clai m . The co urt’s jud gm en t i s ac co rd in gl y AFFIR MED.

5