2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2004 

# J ones v . T o yot a Mtr S ales U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1397

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" J one s v . T o yot a Mtr S ale s U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 921. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/921* Daniel M. Fri edman, United Stat es Senior Circui t Judge f

or t he Federal Circui t, sitti ng by designat ion.
1 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ 03-1397

____________ ANTH ONY JON ES,

Appellant
v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.

___________ Appeal from the Fi nal Order Of the Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman USDC , ED of PA, Entered 01/ 10/03 Granting Defe ndant’s Motion for Summary J

udgment (CivilAction No. 01-CV-4187)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a) (1993)

December 2, 2003 Bef or e: SLOVI TER, ALI TO an d FR IE DMAN, * Circuit Judges (Fil ed March 22, 2004) OPINION OF THE COURT FR IED M AN , Circuit

Judge
. I2

The ap pe lla nt A nt ho ny J on es , a p os tal em pl oye e, file d s ui t in a P en ns yl van ia state
cour t, which the def

end ant removed t o federalcourt on t he ground of dive rsit

y, alle ging a productliabil ity c rashw orthine ss claim invo lving a n injury he suffered a t wo rk w hile operating a machine man ufactur ed by t he appell ee Toyot a Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. [“To yota”]. Un der the crash wo rthines s theo ry, the defect in th e pro duct d oes n ot itself cause the accident , but instead increases the severity of the i njury

suffered. According to th e c omp la int, Jo ne s, as pa rt of hi s wo rk , “ wa s o perating a defe ctively designedTow M ot or35 manuf act ur ed b yth e de fen dant, th e s te er in g co lumn of which spun out of cont rol, forceful ly

striking the pl ainti ff in hi s ch est andcaus ing h im to collide with a steel su ppo rt beam in the fa cility, propellin g him from the eq uipm ent to the ground and causing him to suffer serious injuries. ” As the district cou rt pointe d ou t, “the sole defe ct which Pla inti ff as ser ts i n this products liabi lit y action is the la ck of operator restraint s,” i .e. , equi pment that would have pr eventedthe operator of t he
ma chin e fro m b eing ejec ted. During disc ove ry, how eve r, Jones apparent ly changed his t

heory of what happened, and th e district c ourt d escri bed his co ntentio n as follow s: “du ring h is operati on of the t owmotor, it took off, spun clockwis e o ut of co ntrol , and st ruck a perpendic ular

pole in the workpl ace, thus h urling h im ou t of the mac hine a nd ca using him to str ike h is ch est a gain st the pol e.” The district co urt’s sch edulin g ord er requ ired Jo nes “ to pr oduce expert report s” by
a specifi ed da te. In respons e to Toy ota’s inter rogatories, Jones “st ated that he ‘doe s not expect t o callany l iabil ity expert wit

nesses. ’”3

The district

court gr antedT oyota’s motion fo r summ ary judgmen t. The cou rt sta ted th at u nd er Pe nn sylv an ia l aw , to pr ev ail un de r a cr as hw or th in es s th eo ry:

[A] plaintiff must prove three elements : “Fir st, the pla inti ff must demonstrat e that

the desi gn of the vehi cle was defective and that w hen the d esig n w as m ade , a n alte rnative, safer, practic able desig n e xist ed. Second, the pla inti ff must show what injuries , if any , the plaintiff would have r eceived had t he alte rnative safer desig n bee n use d. Th ird, th e pl aintiff must prove wh at inj urie s w ere a ttribu table to th e de fec tive d esig n.” [cit ation omi tted]

` Although Jones cont ended that “the concept

of providing a belt

or rest raint to a bilateral open-si ded mach ine is not beyo nd t he c om pre hen sion of o rdin ary lay pe rson s,” the co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t “[ w ]ith ou t ex pe rt te sti m on y, a j ur y w ou ld be le ft to sp ecula te
overth e de sign feat

ures of Pl ainti ff’s hy

potheti cal oper ator r estr aint s ystem, how that restraint sys tem would have perfor med in a dynamic colli sion sce nario, and whether such
a restraint

sys tem would have les sened the injuri es that Plaintiff would ha ve suf fered from the impact

with the workpl ace pole. Such engineering, medi cal, and biomechanic al
an alysis is not within the know -how of the ord inary layperson, and thus requ ires expert evidence. ” II Under “P en ns ylv an ia p ro du cts lia bi lity l aw,” w hich “cont rols” this divers ity

case, Padill as v. Stor

k-Gamco, Inc. , 186 F.3d 412 , 414 (3d Cir. 1999), a crashworthiness prod ucts liability

case re qu ires the pla inti ff to establis h the three element s the di stri ct
cou r t spe cifie d. Colvill e v. Crown Equip. Corp. , 809 A .2d 91 6, 922 -23 (P a. Sup er. Ct. 2 002). As th is cou rt has e xplain ed, “[ u]nlike ortho dox prod ucts liab ility . . . litigatio n ,4

crashworthyor second collision cases impugning the desi gn of a [product ] requi re a high lyrefine d and almo st invar iably diffic ult pres entatio n of proo f in thre e as pec ts.” Hu ddell v. Le vin , 537 F.2d 726, 737 (3d Cir. 1976). I t there furthe r point ed out “[w]her e the issue concerns a product’s design , . . . it would seem that

expe rt o pinion is the on ly availa ble method to establis h defecti veness, at le ast where t he des ign is n ot pate ntly defecti ve.” Id. at 73 6. The district

court cited Penns y lvania cases i ndicat ing that , at least where the designiss ue s are b eyond th e ord inary com preh ensio n of layman , expe rt testimo ny is requir ed to assis t th e ju ry in perform ing the fun ction. Here, as n oted, the district court rejec tedJone s’ con tention that “th e con cept o f provi ding a bel t or r estr aint to a bilateral open-si ded machine is not beyond the comprehension of ordinary l ay persons,” because the questi on was not that simple and wou ld requi re an “engi neering, medical, and biomechanica l analysis [th at] i s not within the know-how of the ordinar y l ayper son, and thus re quires expert e vidence. ” The need fo r Jo nes to present expert tes timony was particularly great because Toyota ’s motion for s ummary judgment include d affidavi ts of t wo engineeri ng expe rts . One engineer

explai ned in consi derable detai l “why gene rally oper ator‘rest raint s’ on a tow tractor do not make good e ngineering sense and . . . w ould not ad d to the over all safety of su ch a to w tr a ctor, ” and point ed out fl aws in Jones’ theory . The other engineer
ex plaine d why the “ tow tract or is n ot d efe ctive in d esig n be cau se o f ‘la ck o f res train ts.’ To the be st of [ his] kn ow ledge , no m anufacture r of IT A C lass III pr odu cts in the wo rld5

has operator ‘restraints,’ and n o design o r safety standard calls for o perator ‘restraint s’ on such tow tr actors . The concept is not a safe one fr om a design st andpoint. ” In response to the moti on, Jones did not s ubmit any answering affi davit or documentati on. He filed onl y a four -page “memorandum of law c ontr a” the mo tion, in which he arg ued th at exp ert e v idence w as not requ ired becau se the ques tions the jury would have to deci de were withi n its comprehension. In short, the dis tri ct court correctly

conc luded that Jones’ failure to p roduce e xpert evidence relating to t

he three crashworthiness f actors was fatalto his ca se, a nd p rope rly granted s ummary judgment in favor of Toyota. The judgment of the dist rict court i s affir

med.