Opinion ID: 807056
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Daubert Challenges

Text: Several other expert evidence challenges have been raised. In his cross-appeal, Roman claims that the testimony of Western’s liability expert, Gregory, was inadmissible. Gregory was a registered professional engineer hired to evaluate and critique Vandervort’s opinions. Roman has not raised any credible challenge to Gregory’s testimony, claiming only that his “opinions defy common sense and logic.” Western would exclude Roman’s other experts, Stephanie Chalfin, M.S. and Dr. R. Douglas Womack. Chalfin was a vocational rehabilitation counselor and Womack an economist who estimated the loss of income Roman would likely incur from his leg injuries. Western objects to both individuals on Rule 702 grounds, and claims the economic evidence was irrelevant and confused the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. The district court found in denying the motion in limine to exclude these two experts that Louisiana law permits injured plaintiffs to recover “an award for loss of earnings and earning capacity” and pre-accident income is not dispositive about its amount. Hobgood v. Aucoin, 574 So. 2d 344, 346 (La. 1990). Roman’s business involved manual labor and required him to stand as many as 12 hours daily; he could no longer fulfil those responsibilities. It was not 13 No. 10-31271 speculative for Chalfin to conclude that he would need to hire a supervisor in order for his business to continue. Western also argues that Womack’s testimony that Roman would lose income was unreliable and factually unsupported because an unfiled tax return from the year after the accident showed business earnings greater than those from the preceding ones. This is not an evidentiary objection, but rather a request for reconsideration of a factual matter resolved by the jury. We note Roman sought over $1,000,000 in lost wages and received only $600,000, suggesting the jury may have partly credited Western’s argument. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence – La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.55 Because none of the expert evidence was improperly admitted, we turn now to Western’s sufficiency challenge. This case was tried exclusively under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”). The Act has a single cause of action holding manufacturers liable for damages “proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders [it] unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.54. A product can be “unreasonably dangerous” in four different ways. Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 261 (5th Cir. 2002). Only two of these were put to the jury. They were the “design defect” theory under Section 9:2800.56, and the “construction or composition” theory under Section 9:2800.55. The jury found liability on the latter basis, on which it had been instructed from the statute’s text, as follows. A product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition if, at the time the product left its manufacturer’s control, the product deviated in a material way from the manufacturer’s specifications or performance standards for the product or from otherwise identical products manufactured by the same manufacturer. La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.55. 14 No. 10-31271 Because “LPLA liability for a defect in construction or composition is strict liability,” the plaintiff need not show that “the manufacturer knew or should have known of the product deviation and could have prevented it,” i.e., negligence. John Kennedy, A Primer on the Louisiana Products Liability Act, 49 La. L. Rev. 565, 594 (1989);8 id. at 595 & n.140, 141; see also Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc., 483 So. 2d 934, 940 (La. 1986); Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 340 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2008). Western argues that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis on which the jury could reach its verdict. Because this argument was properly preserved, we consider it de novo. Goodner, 650 F.3d at 1039. Most of Western’s arguments for judgment as a matter of law are interwoven with its arguments against the admission of Roman’s experts. A few independent assertions can be discerned, and we address them as well. The company first argues that Roman improperly used the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, or “the thing speaks for itself.” The “doctrine means that the circumstances surrounding an accident are so unusual as to give rise to an inference of negligence or liability on the part of the defendant.” Jurls v. Ford Motor Co., 752 So. 2d 260, 265 (La. Ct. App. 2000). The plaintiff has repeatedly disavowed reliance on res ipsa loquitor. In contesting Western’s Rule 50(b) motion, counsel for Roman told the district court: “we’re not alleging res ipsa, we’re saying what an analogy that is. . . . [The pump] is out of the box and 10 or 15 minutes later the hose explodes. So we’re not alleging that.” Given this, it is unnecessary for us to rule whether the doctrine could have been used in this case. We do note, however, that contrary to Western’s claims of impropriety, the Louisiana Supreme Court has expressly held “that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to products liability actions” under the LPLA. 8 Courts consider Kennedy a reliable authority, in part, because he co-drafted the LPLA. Hunter ex rel. Hunter v. Knoll Rig & Equip., Mfg. Co., 70 F.3d 803, 805 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). 15 No. 10-31271 Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Am., Inc., 938 So. 2d 35, 49 (La. 2006); see also id. at 46-51; Frank L. Maraist & Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., Louisiana Tort Law § 15.09 (2004 ed.), at 15-17 to 15-18. Western further contends the concept that “circumstantial evidence can be used to infer that a product is unreasonabl[y] dangerous . . . is not the law, and this Court should not give any value” to it. We disagree. The defect under Section 9:2800.55 “may be established by circumstantial evidence.” Bohn Ford, 483 So.2d at 940; see also Kennedy, supra, at 595 & n.140, 141; Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Trippe Mfg. Co., 843 So. 2d 571, 576 (La. Ct. App. 2003). Leading scholars on the LPLA explain that plaintiffs “generally rel[y] heavily on circumstantial evidence.” Maraist & Galligan, supra, at 15-17. The final aspect of Western’s challenge is that Roman’s evidence fell short of what was necessary to prove by a preponderance that the pump deviated from Western’s “specifications or performance standards, or from components in identical” Predator Pumps. Lawrence v. Gen. Motors Corp., 73 F.3d 587, 589 (5th Cir. 1996). To prevail under the construction or composition theory, Louisiana courts require the plaintiff to (i) set forth the manufacturer’s specifications for the product and (ii) demonstrate “how the product materially deviated from those standards so as to render it ‘unreasonably dangerous.’” Jenkins v. Int’l Paper Co., 945 So. 2d 144, 150 (La. Ct. App. 2006); see also Grenier v. Med. Eng’g Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 759, 764 (W.D. La. 2000). “Any deviation that increases the propensity for injury is material.” Masters v. Courtesy Ford Co., 758 So. 2d 171, 192 (La. Ct. App. 1999), vacated on other grounds by 765 So. 2d 1056 (La. 2000). The specifications Roman relied upon are clear from the record. The performance standard was based both on the Predator Pump’s operating manual and testimony from Western about its internal performance standards. Western’s general manager Darren Dyck testified that the polyurethane ball is 16 No. 10-31271 designed to eject when the pressure reaches between 750 and 1,000 psi. Similarly, the operator’s manual represented that the “ball will stay in place until enough pressure occurs that will cause the ball to blow out through the opening in the brass cap and release the pressure.” See Hanover Am., 843 So. 2d at 577 (holding that a triable issue on construction/composition theory existed because performance standard for an electrical component deemed “not [to] include igniting a fire in normal operation”). As to how the deviation occurred, the jury was entitled to credit testimony by Vandervort and Riggs that the Cam-Lok shearing evidenced that pressures above 2,000 psi were reached. Crucially, as recounted already, uncontroverted evidence is that the ball on his machine, in fact, never ejected. The defect cannot be based “solely on the fact that an accident occurred.” Morris v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 756 So. 2d 549, 558 (La. Ct. App. 2000). According to this principle, liability has been withheld when an expert could not “offer an explanation or theory as to which component” of the product failed, or how the failure could have caused the accident. Id. It is also inadequate if, after the expert was excluded, the remaining evidence provided no explanation for why the product failed. Brown v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 919 F.2d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1990). However, neither defect existed here. Roman’s experts identified the PRV ball as the root cause of the explosion and supported their theories through the quasi-static and dynamic tests, as well as with calculations according to the laws of physics. This was sufficient. On the other hand, a jury inference that a clog or hose-kink occurred would have to be despite lay testimony that the stucco slurry was flowing easily and the absence of proof of a kink. We do not find the inference to be impermissible. See Weber v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So. 2d 754, 757 17 No. 10-31271 (1971); Maraist & Galligan, supra, at 15-3, 15-12 to 15-17.9 “A jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and those inferences may constitute sufficient proof to support a verdict.” Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There is no basis to set aside the jury’s finding of a defect under Louisiana Revised Statute Section 9:2800.55.