2009 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 1-13-2009 

# M e a dows v . Anchor Longwall P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2580

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M e a dows v

. Anchor L on gwall " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2052. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2052NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 2580 D O N A L D E . M E A D O W S , JR .; A M A N D A M E A D O W S, hus band and w i fe

v. A N C H O R L O N G W A L L A N D R E B U IL D , IN C .,

a W es tV i r gi ni a corpor at i on

v. L E W IS -G O E T Z C O . IN C ., su c c e ss o r-in -in ter e st o f G o o d in g & S h ield s R u b b e r C o .; SY ST E M ST E C K O , a D i vi s i on of D ay co Europe , L t d. T h ird P a rtyD e f

e n d a n ts D o n a ld E . M e a d o w s , J r., A m and a M eado w s,

A p p e llan ts

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 02- cv- 02062) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den M agi s tr at e J udge: T he H onor abl e A m yR eynol ds H ay

A r gued D ece m ber2, 2008T he H onor abl e Thom as N . O ’ N ei l l , J r . , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B efore: A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es,

and O ’ N E I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed J anuary13, 2009 ) R i char d J . Schubert , E s qui r e ( A r gued) Al p e rn S c h u b e r tP . C. 330 G r antSt r eet 2727 G r antB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219- 0000 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts K athl een S. M cA l l i s t er , E s qui r e ( A r gued) D i B el l a, G eer, M cA l l i st er & B est 312 B oul evar d of the A l l i es , 3r d Fl oor Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ees St anl eyA . W i ni koff, E s qui r e ( A r gued) M icha el C . H am il ton , E sq u ir e W i ni koff A s s oci at es , 13th Fl oor FourG at ew ayC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222- 0000 C ouns el forT hi r d- Par tyA ppel l ees OP I NI ON O ’ N E I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge A ppel l ant s D onal d E . M eadow s , J r . and A m anda M eadow s appea l the fi nalB yc o n se n t o f th e p a rties , M a g istra te J u d g e H a yc o n d u c ted a ll p ro c e e d in g s in th is 1 cas e as pr ovi ded forbythe 28 U . S. C . § 636( c) and Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 73. 3 j udgm entent er ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t i n favorof appe l l ee A nchorL ongw al l and 1 R ebui l d, I nc. ( A nchor ) . A ppel l ant s cont end the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n i t s M ay3, 2007 fi nal or derexcl udi ng appel l ant s ’ expertw i tnes s ’ t es t i m ony . A ppel l ant s al s o chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof A nchor ’ s m ot i on forpart i al s um m aryj udgm entdi s m i s s i ng a p p e llan ts’ c laim s f

o r stric t li a b ili tya g a in st A n c h o r u n d e r R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 4 0 2 A . F inally , ap p ell an ts ch all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su a sp o n te gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof thi r d- partydefe ndantSy s t em S t ecko a s t o A nchor ’ s cl ai m of contr i but i on agai ns tSt ecko. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s o rd e rs . I. B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , o u r f

a c tu a l su m m a ryis b rie f. A p p e llan ts fi l ed a c i vi l compl ai nton N ovember29, 2002, as s ert i ng cl ai m s agai ns tappel l ee A nchor fors tr i ctl i abi l i ty , negl i gence , br eac h of w arr anty , emot i onal di s tr es s and l os s of con sort i um for M eado w s’ i njur i es that occurr ed w hil e press uri zi ng a m i ne shiel d ag ai nst th e ro o f o f th e M a p le C re e k M in e s w h e re h e w a s e m p lo y e d . A p p e llan ts a lleg e th a t a s hut - off va l ve fi t t i ng r epl ace d byA nchordur i ng a r efurbi s hi ng pr oj ectm al funct i oned, pul l ed l oos e fr om the val ve as s embl yhous i ng due t o the pr es s ur e of the hy dr aul i c fl ui d, a n d s tru c k M e a d o ws o n th e r i g h ts i d e o f h i s f a c e . As a r e s u l to f

th e a c c i d e n t , M e a d o ws4

lo s t u s e o f

h is ri g h t e y e . T he ac ci dentoccurr ed on D ece m ber6, 2000 w hi l e M eadow s w as i ns t al l i ng 800- to n lo n g w a ll s h ie ld s o ri g in a lly m a n u f a c tu re d a n d d e s ig n e d b yM e c o -D o w ty in th e M in e . M e a d o w s w a s e m p lo y e d b yth e M in e a s a lo n g w a ll h e lp e r/ lo n g w a ll u tilit ym a n . L ongw al l s hi el ds ar e pl ace d i n s ucce s s i on and af t ereac h s hi el d i s i n pl ace i t s l eg j acks (h y d ra u lic lif

t c y lin d e rs ) a re p re s s u ri z e d to ra is e th e c a n o p yo f th e s h ie ld to th e m in e ro o f. M eadow s w as engage d i n m anual l ypr es s ur i zi ng a s hi el d, l i kel ythe s hi el d know n as L ongw al l I nt ernat i onal 045 ( Shi el d # 45) , w hi ch r equi r ed hi m t o s t and cl os e t o the h y d ra u lic s y ste m w h e n a sh u t-o f f v a lv e f itt in g p u lled lo o se f

ro m th e v a lv e a ss e m b ly hous i ng and s truck hi m i n t he fa ce. Shor t l ybefor e the ac ci dent , the M i ne contr act ed w i th M ont gom eryE qui pm ent C om panyt o r epai rappr oxi m at el y189 of i t s l ongw al l s hi el ds . M ont gom erys ubcontr act ed w ith s e v e ra l r e p a irc o m p a n ie s , in c lu d in g A n c h o r, t o re f u rb is h a n d /o r r e p a irth e s h ie ld s . A nchorr epai r ed 39 of the 189 l ongw al l s hi el ds r epai r ed forthe M i ne, i ncl udi ng Shi el d # 45, w hi ch di s coveryr evea l ed w as l i kel ythe s hi el d on w hi ch M eadow s w as w or ki ng att he t i m e of hi s acc i dent . A s partof the r epai rand r efurbi s hm entpr oj ect , A nchorr epl ace d hos es and val ves and i ns t al l ed new hos e ki t s , i ncl udi ng St ecko va l ves of a type that M eadow s al l eges caus ed hi s i nj ury . A nchor ’ s paperw or k r evea l ed thatShi el d # 45 w as m i s s i ng a bas e l i ftj ack a tthe t i m e i tw as r ece i ved and thatthe M i ne el ect ed nott o r epl ace it.5

A ppel l ant s hi r ed M ark A . Sokal s ki , P. E . , t o i nves t i gat e the ca us e of the val ve m al funct i on and t es t i fyas an expe r tw i tnes s as t o l i abi l i tyand ca us at i on. Sokal s ki t es t i fi ed i n hi s depos i t i on thatthe ac ci dentoccurr ed w hen M eadow s s t art ed “us i ng m anual l ever s . . . he ende d up a l i t t l e outof s equenc e w hen he w as doi ng i tm anual l yand l eftthe r am bardow n, ” w hi ch cr eat ed a “ s pi ke” i n the pr es s ur e thatover - pr es s ur i zed a defe ct i ve val ve. Sokal s ki t es t i fi ed thatthe val ve “e xpl oded” be caus e A nchorom i t t ed a chec k val ve w hen i tr efurbi s hed the s hi el d thatw as partof the or i gi nal s hi el d des i gn and w ou l d h ave rel i eved the o ver- press uri zat i on . In hy draul i c sy st em s, the ch eck v al ve is a s afe tyfea tur e bui l ti nt o t he devi ce t o s ens e and r el i eve e xces s i ve pr es s ur e byal l ow i ng t he over - pr es s ur i zed f

l ui d t o fl ow back i nt o the s y s t em t o a r el i ef va l ve, w hi ch i s another s afe tydevi ce on the s y s t em. A ft erexami ni ng a numberof St ecko va l ves , Sokal s ki found th a t th e th re a d s o f

th e m a le a n d f

e m a le c o n n e c tio n s o f

th e v a lv e w e re in c o rre c tlyc u t, re n d e ri n g th e v a lv e s u b je c t to f a ilu re a t p re s s u re s b e lo w its e x p e c te d f a ilu re p re s s u re . T h o u g h h e a d m itted th at he co u ld n o t r ep li ca te th e e x ac t con d it ion s o f th e m ine s h iel d ’s hy dr aul i c s y s t em w hen i tfai l ed i n hi s t es t i ng , he t es t i fi ed that , us i ng pr i nci pl es of phy s i cs , a pr es s ur e s pi ke w as caus ed i n the hy dr aul i c fl ui d w i thi n the s hi el d s y s t em t hat c o n tr ib u te d to th e f

a ilu re o f th e S te c k o v a lv e . I nvoki ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on, appel l ant s fi l ed, on N ovember 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , a m u lti -c o u n t co m p lain t ag a in st A n c h o r a lleg in g n e g lig e n c e a n d stric t li a b ili ty u n d e r th e R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 4 0 2 A . O n c e d isc o v e rysh o w e d th a t th e sh ield6

in q u e stio n w a s lik e lyS h ield # 4 5 , A n c h o r f iled a th ird -p a rtyc o m p lain t jo in in g L e w is G oet z and Com panyand St ecko, r es pect i vel ythe s uppl i erand the manufactur erof the val ve i n ques t i on, s eeki ng i ndemni ty/ and orcontr i but i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed L ew i s - G oet z’ s unoppos ed mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbeca us e no partycoul d pr ove th a t th e v a lv e in a p p e lla n ts ’ c o u n s e l’ s c u s to d yw a s s u p p lie d b yL e w is -G o e tz . A n c h o r th e n f

iled a m o tio n f

o r p a rtial s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith re g a rd to appel l ant s ’ s tr i ctl i abi l i tycl ai m w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed on A pr i l 17, 2006 on t he b a sis th a t A n c h o r d id n o t se ll o r su p p lya p ro d u c t b u t ra th e r p ro v id e d a se rv ice w h ich is n o t subject t o str ictli ab il ityclaim s. O n A u g u st 28 , 2 0 0 6 , the C o u rtg ran ted S teck o ’s m ot i on forpart i al s um m aryj udgm entw i th r egar d t o anycl ai m of A nchoragai ns tSt ecko fori ndemni ty , fi ndi ng thatnone of the theor i es of l i abi l i tyA nchoras s ert ed aga i ns tSt ecko w oul d s uppor ts uch a c l ai m . N ext , on J anuary5, 2007 the C our ts ua s pont e gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entas t o anycl ai m s forcontr i but i on byA nchoragai ns tSt ecko, fi ndi ng th a t n o e v id e n c e id e n tif ie d b yA n c h o r s u p p o rt e d a c la im f o r s tr ic t lia b ility a g a in s t S te c k o . A ppel l ant s ’ negl i gence cl ai m agai ns tA nchorw as the onl yr emai ni ng cl ai m . A ft er the cl os e of di s covery , A nchorfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the t es t i m onyof ap p ell an ts’ o n lyex p ert on li ab il ityan d ca u sati o n , S o k alsk i. A fter a h ea ri n g o n F eb rua ry 1, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tm ade a det erm i nat i on thatthe pr opos ed t es t i m onydi d notm eet the re q u ir em en ts fo r ex p ert t esti m o n yu n d er F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 7 0 2 an d the f ac tors out l i ned bythe Supr eme C our ti n D aubertv. M err el l D ow Phar m ace ut i cal s , I nc. , 5097

U . S. 579, 589 ( 1993) , beca us e i tw as i ns uffi ci ent , notbas ed on an appr opr i at e founda t i on, and i nadequa t el yt i ed t o t he fa ct s of the ca s e. A ft erexcl udi ng Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i m ony , t he D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted f in a l ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f A n c h o r o n M a y3 , 2 0 0 7 . A p p e llan ts f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n M a y2 3 , 2 0 0 7 .

II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is d iv e rs ity a c tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1332. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe fi nal or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm ent . N B T B ank N at ’ l A s s oc. v. Fi r s tN at ’ l C om m . B ank, 393 F. 3d 404, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “A ffi r m i ng the gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s pr operw her e ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law .” Id . (cita tio n o m itt e d ). W e re so lv e a ll fa c tu a l d o u b ts a n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng party . See D L R es . I nc. v. Fi r s t E ner gySol ut i ons C o rp., 5 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n r evi ew i ng the exc l us i on of expe r tt es t i m onyunderD aubert , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. Pi neda v. For d M ot orC o. , 520 F. 3d 237, 2 4 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). “A n a b u se o f d isc re tio n a rise s w h e n th e D istric t C o u rt' s d e c isio n re sts upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw oran i m pr oper appl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t . ” I n r e TM I L i t i g. , 193 F. 3d 613, 666 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal8

quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T hi s C our tdoes noti nt er fer e w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ' s deci s i on “unl es s ther e i s a def

i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe [D i s tr i ctC our t ] comm i t t ed a c l ear err orof j udgm enti n t he conc l us i on i tr eac hed upon a w ei ghi ng of the r el evantfac t or s . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o the ext entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ' s deci s i on in v o lv e d a le g a l in te rp re ta tio n o f th e R u le s o f

E v id e n c e , th e re v ie w is p le n a ry. S e e id . III . A . S trict L iab ili tyC laim T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton appel l ant ’ s cl ai m for s tr i ctl i abi l i tyagai ns tA nchor , fi ndi ng thatA nchors ervi ced butdi d notm anufa ctur e or r edes i gn the al l egedl ydefe ct i ve pr oduct . M eadow s ’ compl ai nt , i nt eral i a, al l eged that A nch or w as l i able on a theoryof st ri ctl i abil i tyun der the R est at em ent ( S econ d) of T ort s § 402A . Speci fi cal l y , M eadow s al l eged thatA nchordi d notengage s ol el yi n s ervi ci ng t he l ongw al l s hi el d t hatcaus ed hi s i nj urybutdefe ct i vel yr edes i gned, r efurbi s hed, r em a n u f a c tu re d a n d re c o n d iti o n e d it. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof A nchorand found that§ 402A does notappl yt o a def endants uch as A nchorw ho nei thers ol d norm anufa ctur ed the al l egedl ydefe ct i ve val ve. R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 4 0 2 A sta tes th a t: (1 ) O n e w h o se lls a n yp ro d u c t in a d e f e c tiv e c o n d iti o n u n re a so n a b ly d a n g e ro u s to th e se ller o r c o n su m e r o r to h is p ro p e rtyis s u b jec t to liab ili ty f o r p h y sic a l h a rm th e re b yc a u se d to th e u lti m a te u se r o r c o n su m e r, o r to h is p ro p e rty , if

(a ) th e se ller is e n g a g e d in th e b u sin e ss o f se lli n g su c h a p ro d u c t, and9 ( b) i ti s expec t ed t o and does r eac h the us erorcons um erw i thout s u b s ta n tia l c h a n g e in th e c o n d itio n in w h ic h it is s o ld . ( 2) T he rul e s t at ed i n Subse ct i on ( 1) appl i es al though

( a) the s el l erhas exer ci s ed al l pos s i bl e ca r e i n the pr epar at i on and s al e of hi s pr oduct , and ( b) the us erorcons um erhas notboughtthe pr oductfr om or en tered into a n yco n tr ac tual relati o n w ith the s ell er. P e n n sy lv a n ia a d o p ted th is p ro v isio n in W e b b v . Z e rn , 2 2 0 A .2 d 8 5 3 (1 9 6 6 ). C o m m e n t f t o Sect i on 402A fur therexpl ai ns thatthe s ect i on “appl i es t o anym anufa ctur erof s uch a pr oduct , t o anyw hol es al e orr et ai l deal erordi s tr i but or. . . . I ti s notnece s s arythatthe s el l erbe enga ged s ol el yi n t he bus i nes s of s el l i ng s uch pr oduct s . ” See a l s o M al l oyv. D otyC onvey or , 820 F. Supp. 217, 220 ( E . D . Pa. 1993) , quot i ng B ur ch v. Sear s , R oebuck & C o ., 4 6 7 A .2 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 1 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 8 3 ), n o tin g th a t a “ se ller” in c lu d e s “ a ll supp l i ers of a d efecti ve p roduct i n the chain of d i stri bu t i on , w hetherret ai l ers , partm akers, as s embl er s , ow ner s , s el l er s , l es s or s oranyotherr el evantcat egory . ” See a l s o Sal vadorv. A t l ant i c St eel B oi l erC o. , 307 A . 2d 398 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1973) , not i ng thata manufactur er o f a d e f e c tiv e p ro d u c t is liab le u n d e r 4 0 2 A re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r th e m a n u f

a c tu re r is in v o lv e d in th e ite m ’s s a le . Ser vi ce pr ovi der s have l ong been e xcl uded fr om s tr i ctl i abi l i ty . See La R os s a v. Sci ent i fi c D es i gn C o. , 402 F. 2d 937, 942- 43 ( 3d C i r . 1968) ( i nt erpr et i ng N ew J er s eyl aw a n d h o ld in g th a t, un lik e m a ss p ro d u c e d g o o d s, se rv ice s a re n o t m a rk e ted to a w id e v a rie ty o f th e g e n e ra l p u b lic, so p a rties in ju re d b yp o o r se rv ice s a re in a b e tter p o sitio n to lo c a te the tor t feasor and identi fythe d efect caused bythe tor t feasor' s negli gen ce); L em l eyv. J &10

B T i r e C o. , 426 F. Supp. 1378, 1379- 80 ( W . D . Pa. 1977) ( not i ng thatther e had be en no e x p a n s io n o f

S e c tio n 4 0 2 A to in c lu d e p e rs o n s w h o s u p p ly a s e rv ic e ). A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e ter m in in g th a t A n c h o r w a s n o t a m a n u f a c tu re r o r se ller o f

a p ro d u c t u n d e r § 4 0 2 A b e c a u se th e ya lleg e th a t A n c h o r, in r epai r i ng and r efurbi s hi ng the l ongw al l s hi el ds , “r edes i gned” the hy dr aul i c s y s t em and “s ol d” the r edes i gned s y s t em back t o the M i ne. A ppel l ant s poi ntt o the depos i t i on tes tim o n yo f

th e c h ief

e n g in e e r a t A n c h o r a t th e tim e o f th e lo n g w a ll sh ield re p a ir p rojec t, E dm ond G r off thathe made change s t o the ci r cui torhy dr aul i c dr aw i ngs of Shi el d # 45 as ev iden ce that h is draw ing s co n sti tuted a m o d ifi ca ti o n o f th e o ri g inal m an u fa cture r’s dr aw i ngs of the hy dr aul i c s y s t em. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatA nchorper form ed a de s i gn funct i on bym odi fy i ng the or i gi nal m anufa ctur er ’ s dr aw i ngs and ther efor e enga ged i n an actthatputi t s el f i n a pos i t i on of a manufac tur er . A nchorcont ends that , w hi l e G r off m ade a dr aw i ng of the hy dr aul i c s y s t em, the hy dr aul i c s y s t em w as des i gned bythe o rig in a l eq u ip m e n t m a n u f a c tu re r, M e c o -D o w ty , an d th a t an yc h a n g e s o r m o d if ica tio n s to the s y s t em w er e s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed and appr oved bythe M i ne. A nchorar gues and pr es ent ed evi dence thati tdi d notm anufa ctur e, pur chas e, s el l ors uppl ythe s hi el d ati s s ue o r th e a lleg e d lyf

a u ltyv a lv e th a t ca u se d th e in ju rie s b u t m e re lya ttac h e d th e c o m p o n e n t to the s hi el d unal t er ed fr om the w ayi tw as r ece i ved fr om the manufactur er , appel l ee St ecko, a n d th a t th e s h ie ld s th e m s e lv e s w e re a t a ll tim e s o w n e d b yth e M in e . Penns y l vani a l aw does r ecogni ze s tr i ctl i abi l i tyfora manufactur erof a pr oductA ppel l ant s al s o att empt t o getar ound the s el l erdi s t i nct i on byar gui ng thatA nchor 2 w as a b ail ee o f th e lon g w all sh iel d an d that b ail m en t can g ive rise to a claim u n d er § 4 0 2 A . S e e B e rk b ile v . B ra n tly H e lic o p te r C o rp ., 3 3 7 A .2 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 8 n .3 (P a . 1 9 7 5 ). A ppel l ant s ci t e K al um et al s , I nc. v. H i t achi , 21 F. Supp. 2d 510 ( W . D . Pa. 1998) , for 11 r egar dl es s of w hetherthe manufactur erw as i nvol ved i n the s al e. See W ebb v. Z ern, 220 A . 2d 853 ( Pa. 1966) . B utadopt i ng M eadow s ’ theorythat , byr efurbi s hi ng and r epai r i ng the l ongw al l s hi el d, A nchor“r edes i gned, ” manufactur ed and s ol d a pr oductt o the M i ne w oul d eff

ect i vel ys w al l ow the di s t i nct i on betw een s el l er s of pr oduct s and thos e that s i m pl ypr ovi de a s ervi ce f orthe pr oduct s aft erm anufa ctur i ng. Fr om the evi dence i n the r ecor d, A nchordi d nothol d i t s el f outt o be the s el l erof pr oduct s s uch as val ves or l ongw al l s hi el ds . N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed t o contr adi ctthatanychange s i n the dr aw i ngs ati s s ue w er e made atthe r eques tof the M i ne and ul t i m at el yappr oved bythe M in e . F u rth e r, n o e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to c o n tra d ict th a t th e p a rts th a t A n c h o r u se d in re f u rb is h in g a n d re p a ir in g th e s h ie ld s w e re p u rc h a s e d in c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e M in e . A p p e llan ts a lso c laim th a t A n c h o r is a “ se ller” u n d e r S e c tio n 4 0 2 A b e c a u se it pl ay ed a r ol e i n r eques t i ng addi t i onal part s . H ow ever , thi s cl ai m fai l s beca us e anys uch r eques t s byA nchorw er e mer el yi nci dent al t o s ervi ci ng the s hi el ds as s peci fi ed bythe M in e a n d a p p e llan ts h a v e p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e th a t th e p a rts re q u e ste d a re th e a lleg e d ly defe ct i ve pr oduct s ati s s ue her e. Fi nal l y , ther e i s no evi dence thatA nchorw as pai d for anyal l eged redesi gn bythe M i ne as pa rtof the repai r pr oject . A pp el l ants provide no case l aw t o s uppor tthei rtheorythatr epai r i ng and r efurbi s hi ng cons t i tut es “r e- m anufa ctur i ng” and “r e- des i gni ng” underPenns y l vani a l aw . A nchorpr ovi ded a s ervi ce: the r epai rand 2s uppor tthat§ 402A appl i es i n a bai l m entr el at i ons hi p. H ow ever , the K al um et al s anal ogy

w oul d appl yonl yi f an A nchorempl oy ee ha d been i nj ur ed w hi l e w or ki ng on a def ect i ve l ongw al l s hi el d. W e fa i l t o s ee how K al um et al s appl i es t o M eadow s ’ acc i dent . O nce the l ongw al l s hi el ds w er e r eturned t o t he M i ne, the bai l er/bai l ee r el at i ons hi p t erm i nat ed. See A m er i can Enka C o. v. W i cac o M ach. C orp. , 686 F. 2d 1050, 1053 ( 3d C i r . 1982) , hol di ng that “[a] bail m ent i s a del i veryor depo si tof p ers on al tyun der an i m pli ed o r express agr eementthatatthe t erm i nat i on of the bai l m entthe per s onal tyw i l l be r edel i ver ed t o t he bai l or , otherw i s e dea l tw i th acc or di ng t o the bai l or ' s di r ect i ons , orkeptunt i l the bai l or re c la im s it.” 12 r efurbi s hm entof 39 of the M i nes ’ l ongw al l s hi el ds . W e dec l i ne t o hol d thati n r epai r i ng a l ongw al l s hi el d A nchorw as i nvol ved i n “r e- des i gni ng” or“r e- m anufa ctur i ng. ” T he p ub l i c po l i cycon si derat i on s und erl y i ng stri ctl i abil i tyal so argue ag ai nst hol di ng thatA nchorw as a “s el l er ” of pr oduct s . T he contr ol l i ng ques t i on i n w hether so m e o n e q u a lifie s a s a se ller, a s P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts h a v e p o in ted o u t, i s th e re latio n sh ip betw een the def

ect i ve pr oductand the over al l chai n of di s tr i but i on. See Fr eyv. H ar l ey Da v i d s o n M o t o rCo . , 7 3 4 A. 2 d 1 , 1 7 ( P a . S u p e r . Ct . 1 9 9 9 ) . Th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our thas fol l ow ed a f

our - partt es ti n det erm i ni ng w hetherpubl i c pol i cyr equi r es the i m pos i t i on of s tr i ctl i abi l i tyon a s uppl i erof an a l l egedl ydefe ct i ve pr oduct : ( 1) w hether defe ndanti s the onl ym emberof the mar ket i ng chai n avai l abl e t o i nj ur ed pl ai nt i ff; ( 2) w hetherthe i m pos i t i on of s tr i ctl i abi l i tyw oul d s erve as an i ncent i ve t o s afe ty ; ( 3) w hether defe ndanti s i n a bett erpos i t i on than the cons um ert o pr eventthe ci r cul at i on of def ect i ve pr oduct s ; and ( 4) w hetherdefe ndantcan di s tr i but e the cos tof compensa t i ng fori nj ur i es re su lti n g f

ro m d e f e c tiv e p ro d u c ts b yc h a rg in g f o r it in its b u sin e ss . F ra n c io n i v . G ib so n ia T ruc k C o rp., 3 7 2 A . 2 d 7 3 6 , 7 3 9 -40 (P a. 19 7 7 ).13

Fi r s t , as A nchorpoi nt s out , appel l ant s coul d have s ued M eco- D ow ty , the m a n u f a c tu re r o f

th e lo n g w a ll sh ield , o r S tec k o , the m a n u f a c tu re r o f

th e a lleg e d ly d e f e c tiv e v a lv e . S e c o n d , im p o sin g liab ili tyo n A n c h o r w o u ld n o t se rv e a s a n in c e n tiv e to s afe tys i nce A nchori s noti n t he bus i nes s of bui l di ng, des i gni ng orm anufa ctur i ng the s h ie ld s o r v a lv e s a n d th e re f o re d o e s n o t h a v e c o n tr o l o v e r t h e s a f e ty o f th e p ro d u c ts . Si m i l ar l y , A nchori s i n no bett erpos i t i on than the cons um ert o i nfl uence the m anufa ctur i ng of s afe rm i ni ng pr oduct s orpr eventci r cul at i on of def ect i ve mi ni ng pr oduct s beca us e i tacqui r ed the pr oduct s fr om the cons um erforr epai rand w as noti n t he o rig in a l o r d ire c t ch a in o f d istrib u tio n . A n c h o r re p a ire d o n ly3 9 o f th e M in e ’s s h ield s; it w as notm as s pr oduci ng the s hi el ds and val ves . Fi nal l y , al though A nchorcoul d char ge extr a fori t s s ervi ces t o coverthe pot ent i al cos tof compensa t i on fori nj ur i es , i toughtnot b e re q u ir e d to d is tr ib u te th e c o s t o f d e f e c ts in p ro d u c ts it d id n o t d e s ig n o r m a n u f a c tu re . T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e stric t li a b ili ty cl ai m , as M eadow s ’ al l egat i ons i nvol ved A nchor ’ s s ervi ce a ct i vi t i es as a r epai r err ather than as a “s el l er ” and s uch a c l ai m s ounds i n negl i gence . See La R os s a, 402 F. 2d at942- 43; L eml ey , 426 F. Supp. at1379- 80. B . E xcl us i on of Exper tW i tnes s T es t i m ony T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng the t es t i m onyof appel l ant s ’ expertw i tnes s , Sokal s ki . H i s t es t i m onyw as M eadow s ’ s ol e evi dence of negl i gence . T he C our tfound thatSokal s ki ’ s t es t i m onyw as notr el i abl e underR ul e 70214

and s o excl uded hi s t es t i m onyand gr ant ed fi nal j udgm enti n favorof A nchorbeca us e the negl i gence cl ai m w as the onl ycl ai m r emai ni ng aft erthe C our tgr ant ed A nchor ’ s m ot i on f o r p a rt ia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n s tr ic t lia b ility. Sokal s ki ’ s opi ni on i s bas ed on s ever al concl us i ons . Fi r s t , Sokal s ki t es t i fi ed that the St ecko va l ve thats truck M eadow s i n the ey e w as defe ct i ve bec aus e i t s m al e thr eads w ere over- cut, w hich r edu ced it s abi l i tyt o fu l l yand t i gh t l ygri p the fem al e t hreads, th e re b yre d u c in g th e b u rs t p re s s u re to a p p ro x im a te ly o n e -h a lf o f its p u b lis h e d d e s ig n . Second, Sokal s ki concl uded thatthe mi ne’ s hy dr aul i c s y s t em, w hi ch norm al l yoper at es at b e tw e e n 1 7 0 0 p o u n d s p e r sq u a re in c h (“ p si” ) a n d 3 2 0 0 p si, e x p e rie n c e d a “ sp ik e ” in pr es s ur e exc eedi ng 100, 000 ps i on the St ecko va l ve. T hi r d, Sokal s ki concl uded thatt he s p ik e w a s g e n e ra te d d u e to th e ra m b a r o n th e s h ie ld b e in g in th e “ d o w n ” p o s itio n . Four th, Sokal s ki concl uded thatther e w as no chec k val ve betw een the tw o hos es that w o u ld h av e c o n n ec ted in to the v alve asse m b lyan d w o u ld h av e p rev en ted th e p ressu re s pi ke. L as t l y , he conc l uded thatbeca us e the bal l i n the al l egedl ym al funct i oni ng val ve w as “oval l ed” a nd dent ed, extr emel yhi gh pr es s ur e occ urr ed ther e. E s s ent i al l y , Sokal s ki al l eged tw o defe ct s i n t he s hi el d aft erA nchor ’ s r epai r s w er e compl et ed thatcaus ed the a c c id e n t: th e p re se n c e o f th e ra m b a r in th e d o w n p o sitio n th a t g e n e ra ted th e sp ik e in pr es s ur e and the abs ence of a c heck va l ve thatw oul d have pr event ed the val ve fr om s epar at i ng w hen the al l eged s pi ke occ urr ed. S o k a l s k i t e s t i f

i e d r e g a r d i n g th e t e s t s h e u s e d t o r e a c h h i s c o n c l u s i o n s . He15

p u rc h a se d th re e S tec k o b a ll v a lv e s f ro m th e lo t th a t w a s th e so u rc e o f th e a lleg e d ly d e f e c tiv e v a lv e . H e th e n c o n n e c ted th e v a lv e s to a m e tal p ip e f iled w ith w a ter a n d slo w ly in c re a se d th e p re ss u re o n th e w a ter p ip e w ith a n a ir p u m p . H e tes ted tw o o f th e v a lv e s in both the “ope n” and the “c l os ed” pos i t i ons . A ccor di ng t o hi s t es t s , the val ves fai l ed att he 1 3 ,0 0 0 a n d 1 5 ,0 0 0 p s i r a n g e b y“ a n in f in ite s im a l le a k ” o f

w a te r e s c a p in g f

ro m th e v a lv e . M eadow s ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n pr ecl udi ng Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i m onyunderFed. R . E vi d. 702 and D aubert . R ul e 702 has thr ee r equi r ement s : ( 1) the pr offe r ed w i tnes s m us tbe an e xpert , i . e. , m us tbe qual i fi ed; ( 2) t he expertm us tt es t i fyaboutm att er s r equi r i ng s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal ors peci al i zed know l edge, i . e. , m ustbe rel i able; and (3) the ex pert ’s t est i m on ym ustassi stthe tr i er of fact , i . e. , m ust be fi t . See Pi neda, 520 F. 3d at244; I n r e Paol i R . R . Y ar d PC B L i t i g. , 35 F. 3d 717, 741- 4 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). F i rs t , t o q uali fyas an ex pertun der the rul e, un der our l i beral st and ard, a w i tness m u s t p o s s e s s s u f

f ic ie n t q u a lif

ic a tio n s in th e f

o rm o f k n o w le d g e , s k ills a n d tr a in in g . Pi neda, 520 F. 3d at244, ci t i ng I n r e Paol i , 35 F. 3d at741. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that Sokal s ki has s uffi ci entqual i fi cat i ons as a pr ofes s i onal engi neert o t es t i fyas an e n g in e e ri n g e x p e rt u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 a n d th e p a rt ie s d o n o t c o n te s t th is f in d in g . T h e se co n d req u ir em en t i s tha t of reli ab il ity . A cc o rdin g to R u le 70 2 , “a n ex p ert’s t es t i m onyi s admi s s i bl e s o l ong as the pr oces s ort echni que the expe r tus ed i n form ul at i ng the opi ni on i s r el i abl e. Pi neda, 520 F. 3d at247, ci t i ng D aubert , 509 U . S. at589. W hi l e a16

lit ig a n t m u st m a k e m o re th a n a p rim a f a c ie s h o w in g th a t h is e x p e rt' s m e th o d o lo g yis r el i abl e, w e have caut i oned that“[t ] he evi dent i aryr equi r ementof r el i abi l i tyi s l ow ert han the mer i t s s t andar d of corr ectnes s . ” I d. at248. T he admi s s i bi l i tydeci s i on m us tfocus on the expe r t ’ s m ethods and r eas oni ng, and cr edi bi l i tydeci s i ons s houl d notbe cons i der ed unt i l aft eradmi s s i bi l i tyhas been de t erm i ned. I d. , ci t i ng I n r e Paol i , 35 F. 3d at744. T he l anguage of R ul e 702 r equi r i ng the expe r tt o t es t i fyt o s ci ent i fi c know l edge means thatt he expert ' s opi ni on m us tbe bas ed on the “methods and pr ocedur es of s ci ence ” r atherthan on “s ubj ect i ve bel i ef oruns uppor t ed s pecul at i on”; the expe r tm us thave “ good gr ounds ” for h i s o rh e rb e l i e f. I n r e P a o l i , 3 5 F . 3 d a t7 4 2 , c i t i n g Da u b e r t , 5 0 9 U. S . a t5 8 9 . I n s u m, D auberthol ds thatan i nqui r yi nt o t he r el i abi l i tyof s ci ent i fi c evi dence underR ul e 702 r equi r es a det erm i nat i on as t o i t s s ci ent i fi c val i di ty . I d. , ci t i ng D aubert , 509 F. 3d at589 n. 9. A trial c o u rt m a yc o n sid e r se v e ra l f a c to rs in e v a lu a tin g w h e th e r a m e th o d o lo g yis re liab le, in c lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to : (1 ) w h e th e r a m e th o d c o n sis ts o f a tes tab le hypothes i s ; ( 2) w hetherthe met hod has been s ubj ectt o peerr evi ew ; ( 3) the know n or pot ent i al r at e of e r r or , ( 4) the exi s t ence and mai nt enanc e of s t andar ds contr ol l i ng the tec h n iq u e ’s o p e ra tio n ; (5 ) w h e th e r th e m e th o d is g e n e ra llya c c e p ted ; (6 ) th e re latio n sh ip of the t echni que t o m ethods w hi ch have been e s t abl i s hed t o be r el i abl e; ( 7) the qual i fi cat i ons of the expe r tw i tnes s t es t i fy i ng bas ed on the met hodol ogy ; and ( 8) the nonj udi ci al us es t o w hi ch the met hod has been put . Pi neda, 520 F. 3d at247- 48 ( ci t at i ons17

o m itt e d ). A d d iti o n a lly , in c a se s in v o lv in g tec h n ica l su b jec ts lik e e n g in e e rin g , tri a l co u rts m aycons i derr el evantl i t er atur e, evi dence of i ndus trypr act i ce, pr oductdes i gn and acc i denthi s t oryi n eval uat i ng r el i abi l i ty . I d. at248, ci t i ng M i l anow i cz v. T he R aym ond C o rp ., 1 4 8 F . S u p p .2 d 5 2 5 , 5 3 6 (D . N .J . 2 0 0 1 ). “ T h e in q u ir ye n v is io n e d b yR u le 7 0 2 is . .

. a f lexib le on e.” Id . , cit ing D au b ert, 509 U . S. at594. T he D aubertC our tnot ed thatt he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s focus “mustbe s ol el yon pr i nci pl es and met hodol ogy , noton the c o n c lu sio n s th a t th e yg e n e ra te.” 5 0 9 U .S . at 5 9 5 . H o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld that “n o thing in either D au b ert or the F ed era l R u les o f E v iden ce req u ir es a d istri ct co u rt t o admi topi ni on evi dence thati s connec t ed t o exi s t i ng dat a onl ybythe i ps e di xi tof the expert . A courtm ayconcl ude thatther e i s s i m pl yt oo gr eatan ana l yt i cal gap betw een the dat a and the opi ni on pr offe r ed. ” G ener al E l ec. C o. v. J oi ner , 522 U . S. 136, 146 ( 1997) (cit ati o n s o m itted). A ppel l ant s as s ertthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by , i n eff ect , hol di ng th e e x p e rt to a h ig h e r s ta n d a rd o f a d m is s ib ility th a n re q u ir e d u n d e r o u r c a s e la w . Speci fi cal l y , appel l ant s cont end thatbeca us e Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i m onyconcl udi ng that exce s s i ve pr es s ur e ca us ed hy dr aul i c s y s t em fai l ur e w as bas ed on gene r al l yacc ept ed pr i nci pl es of bas i c phy s i cs ( r ecogni zed s i nce the t i m e of Si rI s aac N ew t on) , i ts houl d have been de emed r el i abl e. A ppel l ant s not e thatthi s C our taff i r m ed the dec i s i on of a D i s tr i ct C o u r tn o tt o e x c l u d e t e s t i m o n y b a s e d i n p a r tu p o n g e n e r a l e n g i n e e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s . S t e c yk v . B ell H eli co p ter T ex tr o n , Inc . , 1 9 9 8 W L 5 9 9 2 5 6 , at *3 (E . D . P a. S ep t. 8 , 1 9 9 8 ), af f’d18

St ecyk v. B el l H el i copt erT extr on, I nc. , 295 F. 3d 408, 412 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n St ecyk, defe ndantG ener al M ot or s ar gued thatpl ai nt i ffs ’ expertut i l i zed ge ner al engi neer i ng pr i nci pl es t o addr es s l eaka ge i n t he al l egedl ydefe ct i ve s eal w i thoutanyactual pr oof of a defe ct . S t ecyk, 19 98 W L 59 92 56 , at*7 . In addit i on t o g eneral eng i neeri ng pri ncipl es, h o w e v e r, th e e x p e rt su p p o rte d h is th e o ryw ith su b sta n tial p h y sic a l an d re liab le d o cu m en taryev iden ce . T h u s, the C o u rtall o w ed the testi m o n yb ec au se th e e x p ert su p p lem e n ted h is c o n c lu sio n s b a se d o n g e n e ra l en g in e e rin g p rin c ip les w ith re liab le m e th o d o lo g y . Id . a t * 8 . I n thi s cas e, as the D i s tr i ctC our tpoi nt s out , Sokal s ki ’ s m ethodol ogyw as not r el i abl e. Sokal s ki di d notatt empt t o r epl i cat e the condi t i ons i n the l ongw al l s hi el d att he t i m e of the ac ci dent ; i ns t ead, he t es t ed the val ves w i thoutthe hos es orconnec t or s and s l o wl yi n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e . S o k a l s k i d i d n o te x a mi n e th e s p e c i f i c s h i e l d th a tM e a d o ws w as w or ki ng on atthe t i m e of the ac ci dentbeca us e i tw as r eturned t o s ervi ce i n the M i ne so h e c o u ld n o t sayd ef

init ivelyw h ethe r th e sh iel d co n tai n ed a c h ec k v alve . F u rth er, th ere w as no r efe r ence t o m at er i al , publ i cat i on orl i t er atur e des cr i bi ng the fa i l ur e s cena r i o he p re se n ted , n o e v id e n c e th a t h is m e th o d o lo g yw a s s u b jec ted to p e e r re v iew o r th a t itis g e n e ra llya c c e p ted , n o o u tsid e d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e , as id e f ro m h is o w n re p o rt, su p p o rtin g h is c o n c lu sio n s, n o e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g a n yk n o w n o r p o ten tial e rro r ra tes in h is te stin g , an d n o c o n tro l sta n d a rd s. F in a lly , S o k a lsk i co n c e d e d th a t h is p re ss u re tes ts di d notr epl i cat e the ac ci dentas he hypothes i zed thati thad occ urr ed bec aus e he t es t ed theA s appel l antcorr ect l ynot ed, t es t i ng need onl ybe r eas onabl ys i m i l art o the ac tual 3 event s . Subst ant i al s i m i l ar i tydoes notr equi r e per fec ti dent i tybetw een a ctual and exper i m ent al condi t i ons . St ecyk, 295 F. 3d at412. E xper i m ent al evi dence m aybe a d m itt e d e v e n if

c o n d iti o n s d o n o t p e rf

e c tlyc o rre sp o n d to th e c o n d iti o n s a t issu e in litig a tio n ; d is s im ila ri tie s m a ya f f e c t th e w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e , b u t n o t its a d m is s ib ility. I d. , ci t i ng G l i ck v. W hi t e M ot orC o. , 458 F. 2d 1287, 1294 ( 3d C i r . 1972) ; R amsey erv. G e n . M o to rs C o rp ., 4 1 7 F .2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 4 (8 th C ir. 1 9 6 9 ). A ru lin g o n su b sta n tial sim ilarity is c o m m itt e d to th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial ju d g e . Id . H e re , b a se d o n th e re c o rd , it w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on forthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o fi nd thatthe t es t i ng w as not su b sta n tiallysim ilar to th e in c id e n t. 19 v a lv e b yin c re a sin g th e p re ss u re slo w lyu sin g a p u m p in ste a d o f g e n e ra tin g th e d yn a m ic s pi ke he c oncede d occurr ed atthe t i m e of the ac ci dent ; al s o hi s t es t s di d notr epl i cat e the assem blyof the ho ses, con nector s and S t ecko block va l ve thatexis t ed in the m i ne b ecause he di d notus e anyhos es orconnec t or s i n hi s t es t s . M or eover , he di d notr es ear ch the m axi m um bur s tpr es s ur e of the hos es orconnec t or s orotherw i s e t es tthem w i th orw i thout a che ck val ve. T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thathe s pecul at ed thathad he us ed hos es and cr eat ed a dynami c s pi ke i n pr es s ur e l i ke the one he opi nes occurr ed i n the ac ci dentthe v alve w o u ld h av e se p ara ted b ef o re the h o ses w o u ld h av e b low n . A s the D istri ct C o u rt not ed, the expe r t ’ s ow n t es t i ng di d nots uppor thi s hypothes i s . T hus i tw as notthe 3 “gene r al phy s i cs pr i nci pl es ” w i th w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tt ook i s s ue, butr atherthe m e th o d b yw h ic h S o k a ls k i a p p lie d th e p ri n c ip le s to th e f a c ts o f M e a d o w s ’ a c c id e n t. H e re , the a n a lytica l g a p b e tw e e n th e d a ta a n d th e o p in io n p ro f f e re d is to o g re a t an d is c o n n e c te d o n ly b yth e ip s e d ix it o f th e e x p e rt , n o t b ya n ye v id e n c e . G e n e ra l E le c . C o ., 52 2 U . S . at14 6. T hu s, the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yexcluded S ok al ski ’s t est i m on ybecau se it f a ile d to m e e t th e re lia b ility s ta n d a rd .20

T h e th ird e lem e n t u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 , n a m e ly , w h e th e r th e e x p e rt tes tim o n yw o u ld as s i s tthe tr i erof fa ct , “goes pr i m ar i l yt o r el evanc e. ” Laur i a v. A m tr ak, 145 F. 3d 593, 5 9 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), q u o tin g D a u b e rt, 5 0 9 U .S . at 5 9 1 . T h e e x p e rt’s te stim o n ym u st “ f it” u n d e r t h e f

a c ts o f th e c a s e s o th a t “ it w ill a id th e ju ry in re s o lv in g a f a c tu a l d is p u te .” Id . T he s t andar d forthe fa ct ori s nothi gh; i ti s m etw hen ther e i s a cl ear“fi t ” conne ct i ng t he iss u e in th e c a se w ith th e e x p e rt’s o p in io n th a t w ill a id th e ju ryin d e ter m in in g a n iss u e in th e c a s e . L a u r i a , 1 4 5 F . 3 d a t6 0 0 , q u o t i n g P a o l i , 3 5 F . 3 d a t7 4 5 . “ R u l e 7 0 2 's ‘hel pfu l ness' st and ard r equ i res a vali d sci enti fi c con necti on t o the pert i nen ti nq uiryas a precon dit i on t o ad m i ssi bil i ty . ” Id. , ci t i ng D aub ert , 50 9 U . S . 59 1-92. I n o ther w ords, e x p e rt tes tim o n yb a se d o n a ss u m p tio n s la c k in g f a c tu a l f o u n d a tio n in th e re c o rd is p ro p e rl ye x c lu d e d . S e e S te c yk , 2 9 5 F .3 d a t 4 1 4 . A ppel l ant s as s ertthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw r ongl yr ej ect ed Sokal s ki ’ s opi ni on that th e a c c id e n t w a s c a u s e d b yA n c h o r’ s f a ilu re to in s ta ll a c h e c k v a lv e o n S h ie ld # 4 5 . Sokal s ki t es t i fi ed thatthe or i gi nal m anufa ctur er ’ s s peci fi cat i ons and A nchor ’ s s chemat i cs in d ica ted th a t a c h e c k v a lv e w a s to b e in sta lled in o rd e r to a llo w th e h y d ra u lic f lu id to fl ow back i nt o t he s y s t em t o a r el i ef va l ve i f the pr es s ur e on the bas e l i ftj ack e xcee ded acc ept abl e l i m i t s . Sokal s ki t es t i fi ed thathe exa m i ned the dr aw i ngs done byA nchorand o b serv ed that n o ch ec k v alve s w ere ind icated o n A n ch o r’s sch em ati cs, bu t G rof f’s uncontr overt ed t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed thatthe di agr am S okal s ki r el i ed upon r epr es ent ed a layou t o f th e lo c a tio n o f

th e h o se s in th e h y d ra u lic s y ste m a n d th a t th e o rig in a l sc h e m a tic21

b yM e c o -D o w ty co n ta in s a ll o f th e c o m p o n e n t p a rt s , in c lu d in g th e c h e c k v a lv e s . M or eover , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound that , as A nchoror der ed 50 che ck val ves forthe 39 m achi nes theyr efurbi s hed forthe M i ne and a s Sokal s ki admi t t ed thathe di d notknow fi r s t - hand w hethera che ck val ve w as i ns t al l ed i n the s hi el d ati s s ue bec aus e he di d not in sp e c t it , S o k a lsk i’s te stim o n yre g a rd in g th e a b se n c e o f th e c h e c k v a lv e d id n o t f it w ith th e o th e rw is e u n c o n tr o v e rt e d e v id e n c e b e f o re th e C o u rt . A ddi t i onal l y , ther e w as no “fi t ” betw een Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i ng of the St ecko va l ve and th e f a c ts. A s p re v io u slyn o ted , the tes tin g d id n o t re p lica te th e h o se a ss e m b lya n d h e d id nots ubj ectthe val ves t o t he dynami c pr es s ur e s pi ke he a l l eges occurr ed. N ei therdi d the t es t s he conduc t ed on the St ecko va l ve dupl i cat e the r es ul t s thatoccurr ed i n the mi ne, as no val ve s epar at ed i n t hes e t es t s - a s m al l amount of w at erl eake d i ns t ead - and ther e w as no evi dence of anyoval l i ng ori ndent at i on on the bal l por t i on of the val ve. T he D i s tr i ct C our tcorr ect l ynot ed that“[g] i ven the l ack of r es embl ance Sokal s ki ’ s t es t s have t o the e v e n ts in th e m in e , itis d if f icu lt t o sa yh o w , if a t all, th e se tes ts c o u ld a ss ist th e ju ryin det erm i ni ng w hatcaus ed the ac ci dent . ” A p p e llan ts a lso a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m a d e a “ d e f a c to S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t” deci s i on on w hetherthe l ongw al l s hi el d on w hi ch M eadow s w as w or ki ng w as equi pped w i th a bas e l i ftcy l i nder . Sokal s ki ’ s theoryw as thatthe “s pi ke” i n pr es s ur e w as gener at ed bythe bas e l i ftj ack/ cy l i nderpor t i on of the s hi el d beca us e the r am barw as i n the “dow n” p o sitio n . H o w e v e r, th e e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t w h e n S h ield # 4 5 w a s d e liv e re d to A n c h o r it22

d id n o t con tai n a b ase li ft ram b ar o r a b ase li ft j ac k h o u sing . A cc o rdin g to A n ch o r’s re c o rd s, A n c h o r d id n o t p u t in a n e w b a se lift ra m b a r o r a n e w b a se lift h o u sin g d u rin g its r epai r s and r efurbi s hm entof Shi el d # 45. T es t i m onybyan i ns pect orpr es entatthe M i ne o n th e d a t e o f

th e i n c i d e n ti n d i c a t e s th a tth e s h i e l d M e a d o ws wa s wo r k i n g o n a tth e t i me of the ac ci dentdi d notcont ai n a bas e l i ftj ack. N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatthe M i ne su p p lied o r p a id f

o r a n e w b a se lift ja c k . A d d iti o n a lly , n o e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to c o n tr a d ic t th a t th e s h ie ld d id n o t r e q u ir e a b a s e lif t ja c k to f

u n c tio n . T he o nlyevidence thatapp el l ants po i nt t o in order t o p rove t he ex i st ence o f a ba se l i ftcy l i nderi n Shi el d # 45 w as the equi vocal depos i t i on t es t i m onyof G r off thathe th o u g h t th a t th e b a se lift ra m b a r w o u ld h a v e b e e n re p lac e d b e f o re th e lo n g w a ll sh ield w as sentback t o the M i ne, no tthat he kn ew that i tw as r eplaced on S hiel d # 45 . T hu s, S o k a lsk i’s o p in io n , w h ich d e p e n d e d o n th e e x iste n c e o f a b a se lift ja c k o n S h ield # 4 5 to c a u se th e p re ss u re in c re a se , lac k e d a f a c tu a l f o u n d a tio n in th e re c o rd to sa tisf yth e f it r equi r ementand w as pr oper l yexcl uded bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . See St ecyk, 295 F. 3d at 4 1 4 . A ppel l ant s ar gue thata fa ctual di s put e exi s t ed as t o w hethera bas e l i ftj ack w as att ache d t o Shi el d # 45 beca us e A nchor ’ s paperw or k w as notcorr ectorthata s hi el d ot her th a n S h ield # 4 5 w a s in v o lv e d in th e a c c id e n t. H o w e v e r, as th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly not ed, appel l ant s pr oduced no e vi dence atthe D auberthear i ng thatthe pape rw or k w as i ncorr ectorthatthe i ncorr ects hi el d had bee n i dent i fi ed i n di s covery . T he phot ogr aphS tec k o h a s f iled a n u n o p p o se d m o tio n to f ile a su rre p lyb rie f. T h a t m o tio n is 4 g ra n te d . 23 thatappel l ant s al l ege s uppor t s thata bas e l i ftj ack w as on Shi el d # 45 atbes ts ugges t s t hat the i ncorr ects hi el d had bee n i dent i fi ed. H ow ever , as A nchoronl yr efurbi s hed 39 of the 189 s hi el ds i n t he M i ne r epai rpr oj ect , M eadow s w oul d have ha d t o al s o i dent i fythatt he m al funct i oned s hi el d w as r efurbi s hed byA nchorbeca us e i tw oul d have be en pos s i bl e that A nchordi d notr epai rthe r el evants hi el d i f i tw as notShi el d # 45. T hus , i f Shi el d # 45 w as corr ect l yi dent i fi ed, i tdi d nothave a bas e l i ftj ack s o i tcoul d nothave mal funct i oned in th e w a yth a t S o k a lsk i o p in e d c a u se d th e a c c id e n t. If S h ield # 4 5 w a s n o t co rre c tly i dent i fi ed as the mi ne s hi el d ati s s ue, no evi dence exi s t ed thatthi s uni dent i fi ed s hi el d w as o n e th a t A n c h o r r e p a ir e d . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e f

in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng the t es t i m onyof appe l l ant s ’ expertw i tnes s . Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i m ony fai l ed t o m eetthe r el i abi l i tyand fi tr equi r ement s foradmi t t i ng expertt es t i m onyand w as th e re f o re p ro p e rl ye x c lu d e d u n d e r b o th , a lth o u g h e ith e r w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u f f ic ie n t. C . D i s m i s s al of Sy s t em S t ecko A p p ell an ts’ ch all en g e o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s su a sp o n te gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof thi r d- partydefe ndantSt ecko i s m oot . O n J anuary5, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ua s pont e gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforSt ecko on A nchor ’ s contr i but i on cl ai m s agai ns tSt ecko. A nchordi d notoppos e the s um m aryj udgm ent , as i t s experthad fou nd no m anu facturi ng defe ct s i n the Stecko v al ve co m po nen t s. A nchordoes notnow 424

a p p e a l th e g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f S te c k o . A p p ell an ts argu e, as the yd id b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt , that b ec au se th eir ex p ert found a de fec ti n t he St ecko va l ve ther e w as a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tpr ecl udi ng the di s m i s s al of St ecko be caus e the j urycoul d fi nd thatthe St ecko va l ve w as defe ct i ve a n d c a u se d th e f

a ilu re re su lti n g in M e a d o w s’ in ju ry . A p p e llan ts a re h e re se e k in g to a d m it e v id e n c e a g a in st a p a rtyth e yd id n o t su e in su p p o rt o f a c laim a b a n d o n e d b yth e p a rty w ho r ai s ed i t . Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 14, a pl ai nt i ff c annotr ecove r agai ns ta thi r d- partydefe ndantunl es s the pl ai nt i ff a m ends hi s compl ai ntand fi l es a di r ect act i on agai ns tthe thi r d- partydefe ndant . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 14( b) ; s ee a l s o G eor ge v. B re h m , 2 4 6 F . S u p p . 2 4 2 , 2 4 6 (W .D . P a . 1 9 6 5 ). H e re , d e sp ite b e in g g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ity t o do s o, appel l ant s fai l ed t o amend thei rcompl ai ntort o s eek t o amend t hei rcompl ai nt outof t i m e t o br i ng an ac t i on agai ns tSt ecko unde rR ul e 14. W e ther efor e nee d not cons i derw hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have t aken Sokal s ki ’ s t es t i m onyi nt o acc ount i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforSt ecko a gai ns tA nchor . B eca us e w e af fi r m ed the C ou rt ’s exclusi on of S ok al ski ’s t est i m on yand app el l ants hav e no tfi l ed a clai m against S tec k o o r a m e n d e d th e ir c o m p lain t to b rin g a n a c tio n a g a in st S tec k o , the iss u e is m o o t. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in its e n tir e ty.