Opinion ID: 1153220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pak-Mor

Text: It is undisputed that Pak-Mor designed and built the garbage compaction unit that was mounted on the truck involved in the accident. Townsend and Heald contend that the placement of the riding platforms on the rear of the garbage compaction unit constituted a design defect and that that defect rendered the compaction unit unreasonably dangerous. [2] Townsend and Heald advocated in the trial court the alternative placement of the riding platforms in an area behind the truck's cab. The placement of the platforms in this area, they argue, was technologically feasible and would have been safer and more practical. Conceding the feasibility of a behind-the-cab placement of the platforms, but disputing the practicality of such a design, Pak-Mor primarily contends that there is insufficient evidence that a behind-the-cab placement of the platforms would, in fact, be a safer design. After again carefully reviewing the testimony of Fred Monick and Cecil Kinsey, we must agree with Pak-Mor that the summary judgment is due to be affirmed with respect to Townsend and Heald's claims against Pak-Mor. In General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So.2d 1176 (Ala.1985), we held that in order to prove that a vehicle was not crashworthy and, therefore, that it was defective under the AEMLD, the plaintiff must prove that a safer, practical, alternative design was available to the manufacturer at the time it manufactured the vehicle. The existence of a safer, practical, alternative design must be proved by showing that 1) the plaintiffs' injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced by the use of the alternative design, and that 2) taking into consideration such factors as the intended use of the vehicle, its styling, cost, and desirability, its safety aspects, the foreseeability of the particular accident, the likelihood of injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury if that accident occurred, the obviousness of the defect, and the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the defect, the utility of the alternative design outweighed the utility of the design actually used. 482 So.2d at 1191. Fred Monick testified in pertinent part as follows: Q. Have you ever given any opinions, either for the plaintiff or defendant, respecting the location of riding steps on a vehicle? A. No, I haven't. Q. Is this the first case that you have been consulted on respecting the location of riding steps? A. Well, I wasn't really consulted on the location. I don't offer any opinions on the location, front or rear. I'm just telling you the effect of having them on the truck. Q. Do I interpret that to mean that you don't have any criticism of Pak-Mor Manufacturing for the location of these steps? A. No, I don't have any opinion. Q. Have you been asked to render such an opinion? A. No. Q. Do you intend to render one at trial respecting the location of these steps? A. Not any further than I have gone right now. Q. Do you express the opinion today that because Mr. Heald and Mr. Townsend were riding on the rear of this truck, as opposed to having been behind the cab of the truck, that they were hurt more seriously? A. No. I am just simply saying that you are more likely to be ejected when you have less entrapmentyou are more likely to be ejected off the back than off the front behind the cab. Q. Let's assume that they were riding in a space behind the cab of this vehicle. A. Uh-huh. Q. Are you expressing the opinion that they would not have been hurt as seriously as they were? A. No, I'm not sayingI'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other. I'm just talking about the likelihood of ejection. Q. Well, are you saying that had they been located behind the cab that under the facts of this accident as you know it they would have been less likely to have been ejected? A. No, I'm not even saying that.... I have not looked at and I haven't been asked to look at the vehicle dynamics ... at the time that it left the road until the time it landed, okay, ... the pitching movements, the yawing movements or the rolling movements of the vehicle.... I'm just saying that you're more likely to be ejected from the rear than from the area between the cab and the packer from my observations of the machine I saw today. Q. Is that opinion a criticism of [Pak-Mor]? A. It's an opinion, simply an engineering opinion. It has nothing to do with a criticism of [Pak-Mor]. I wasn't asked to talk aboutI wasn't asked to look at, I wasn't asked to talk about the location of the rider. It's just something that I've deduced.... . . . . Q. Have you done any research, or do you have any factual evidence respecting the statistical probability of the worker suffering serious bodily injury in a crash like this one if he was riding on the rear step as opposed to behind the cab area? A. No, I have not.... Q. So you would also not render an opinion that rear riding steps caused or substantially contributed to the severe injuries suffered by plaintiffs Townsend and Heald as a result of this accident? A. I have no opinion. Q. You can't give an opinion. You also can't give an opinion respecting the national statistics for the garbage truck industry, can you? A. No. Q. You cannot give any opinion, nor do you have any evidence of the relative likelihood of a worker on a garbage truck suffering an injury as opposed to workers employed at other occupations? A. That's right. Q. So likewise, even with your experience, training, and education, you cannot and will not testify that the injuries to plaintiffs Townsend and Heald in this case would probably have been less severe if they had not been ejected from the vehicle at the time of the accident? A. If they had not been ejected? Q. Yes. A. I could probably render an opinion on that if I did the work, but I haven't done the work on it. As this testimony shows, Monick expressed no opinion as to whether Pak-Mor's design was defective (i.e., as to whether the injuries suffered by Townsend and Heald would have been less severe if at the time of the accident they had been riding on platforms behind the cab). Cecil Kinsey, at the time he testified, did not have an engineering degree (although he had taken some engineering courses). He had never worked for an automobile manufacturer or a manufacturer of garbage compaction units, and he had not been involved in designing or building on-the-road vehicles, such as garbage trucks. He had no expertise in determining how a human body would be affected by the various physical forces at work in a particular automobile accident, and he had no medical background (other than having a general knowledge of basic first aid). He had taken no notes during his investigation of the accident and had compiled no data or scientific studies upon which to base an opinion. He testified as follows: Q.... Are you telling me that under the facts and circumstances of this case as you know them and that you have studied and that you have already been examined on ... that had Mr. Townsend and Mr. Heald been on steps located behind the cab that they would not have been injured? A. As bad. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't be injured. I didn't say that they wouldn't be injured. I say I don't believe they would have been injured as bad. Q. Assume for me, Mr. Kinsey, that in fact Mr. Davenport was able to gear this truck down enough to slow it, even though he had loss of braking efficiency, and he made it to the bottom of [the hill], but he was not able to stop completely and went into that intersection. And that [truck] had been hit broadside by [another vehicle], and I think you said under direct [examination] ... that thank goodness they didn't get hit broadside. Isn't it a fact that Mr. Heald could have been killed had he been standing on the side of it just as easily as if he had been standing on the rear? A. Well, the fact that none of them got killed I couldn't say that it would have been anythat that was a safe place to be because they didn't get killed. . . . .
Q. Why? A. Well, you take the driver, for instance, he wasn't hurt as bad as they were. He got out of the truck. He was confined to the cab, and he didn't have a safety belt or air bags or anything in there. He was holding on. And they would have had communication between the cab and the riders if they had been between the compaction unit and the cab. Q. Let me show you plaintiffs' exhibit 4 that's been referenced and talked about, and I believe these are some of the photographs that you looked at and used in arriving at the conclusions and opinions you have given in this case today. The position of the truck there shows that it is, for a lack of a better word, cantilevered and cockeyed down on its lower left front, correct? A. Right. Q. An is adjacent to what appears to be either a large tree or a large bush? A. Uh-huh. Q. Are you telling me that had Mr. Davenport and Mr. Heald been behind the cab of that truck and had held on as it became airborne and landed in the position that it landed and ended up like it did there that they would not have been hurt ... as badly as they were in the position that they were on the rear riding steps? A. I would come to that conclusion. I mean, on that rear riding step, one of them got thrown into the back blade section of the bin, and the other one got thrown off and hit a rock but because they didn't have any good hand and foot positions to be holding onto, or sitting down positions. . . . . A. But I'm saying if the men had been next to the cab they wouldn't have been back there flapping in the breeze. . . . . Q. Well, is it your opinion that under these facts and circumstances that regardless of how fast they were going they should have hung on and stayed where they were had they been behind the cab? A. Well, what would keep them from jumping? Q. I'm asking you that. A. The fellow driving could have told them to jump, I've lost control, I've got no brakes. They could have jumped. They may have broke a leg or an arm or [gotten] skinned up or something like that, but that's like saying they [would] have been killed when they hit the bottom anyway. And then we're assuming, and I shouldn't do that. Q. And your opinions about whether or not they would have been hurt more or less had they been riding behind the cab is purely that, it's an assumption, isn't it? A. It's an assumption that they wouldn't have been hurt as bad or they would have been hurt more .... . . . . Q. So in summary, your opinion [is] that the only two safe places to ride on any type of a compaction unit, whether it be a side loader or a rear loader, [would] be either in the cab or on steps that have been located immediately behind the cab? A. That's what I said, yes. Q. And in your opinion those are the safest places to be and had Roy Heald and... Mr. Townsend been located there, they would not have been hurt as badly as they were  A. That's possible. Q. Let me finish my question. They would not have been hurt as badly as they were because they were riding on the rear steps of this truck? A. They would have been in a safer position or a position that could be made safer. Q. Have you done any statistical studies or reviewed any national information regarding the number of incidents of injury to workers who ride on rear steps of garbage trucks? A. There is quite a few. I've heard the numbers kicked around, but I don't know what the numbers are. But also I have not heard of anybody being hurt on a compaction unit with the safety positions between the cab and the compaction unit. Q. Let me ask my question one more time. And I think we'll get through this a little quicker if you listen to the question. Have you looked at any data or have you reviewed any statistics respecting the incident rate of injury to riders on the rear riding steps of garbage compaction units on a nationwide basis? A. Right offhand I would have to say no. Now, I may have heard something, I don't know. I've been in a lot of conversations as far as it goes [about] garbage collection units. But right now I would have to say no. . . . . Q. And then if we take that just a step back, Mr. Kinsey, the alternative you say would be to have these people in some type of position right behind the cab? A. Uh-huh. Q. You understand, though, that even right behind the cab, not being inside and not being belted in, that they still could be ejected and seriously injured in the event of an accident? A. Well, the county picks up my garbage, and they have these type Q. Mr. Kinsey. A. sitting in between, and when they come to my house they are always riding in those. And they look pretty safe to me. Q. Well, sir, I appreciate that, but what I'm saying [is] in an outside position no matter where it is, behind the cab or behind the packer body, unless you have got somebody that is actually restrained, belted in, you still have that same possibility of having someone ejected and seriously injured in the event of an automobile accident? A. Well, there is a possibility. Q. I think you will have to agree with me there. A. There is a possibility, yeah. Q. Well, I don't think there is any possibility about it, Mr. Kinsey. I mean, if you are in a position that is outside the cab, outside the zone that in this case General Motors designed for occupants to ride that you're going to be, number one, exposed to the weather, and, number two, you are going to ... likely ... be ejected unless you are restrained, in the event of an automobile accident. A. At that speed the chances of being ejected are pretty good. Q. Even if you are right behind the cab? A. Yeah. Q. All right, sir. . . . . Q. Mr. Kinsey, you understand that there is awell, let me ask you this: Have you ever heard of the term `biomechanics'? A. Bio, that's a mechanical, sure. Q. Yes, sir. And it is a discipline that is intended to study how people are actually injured and how they move in automobile accidents? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. That's a specific A. I've seen that on television, the dummies. Q. Exactly. And manufacturers study how people actually do move and how they are injured in automobile accidents, and you are aware of that? A. I'm aware of that. Q. But you are not a biomechanic? A. Pardon? Q. You are not a biomechanic? You don't hold yourself out to have the expertise  A. I don't have the equipment or the access to the equipment or the expertise  Well, I could learn the expertise. Not all that hard to do. But if you have got the equipment, that's the main thing, and you have got theyou have got the ability to do it, that's the other. Q. I understand. But you don't have any medical training, for example? A. No. Well, I've had my Red Cross training and that sort of thing but not surgical or patching up limbs or anything like that. Q. I understand. Since you're not an expert in biomechanics or occupant kinematics or for that matter [in] the determination of the mechanism of injury for occupants in automobile accidents, you can't state here today that had Mr. Heald and Mr. Townsend been in a different place other than the cab, since that's sort of common sense, that they would have sustained a lesser amount of injuries? A. I wouldn't guarantee it, but it's reasonable to assume that. Just like if you and I were behind the cab, you may be able to hold on a lot better than I could. Your hands are younger, and mine are getting old, and the human element is different. Q. I totally understand that. But at the same time you also understand that you had unrestrained occupants behind a cab and a packer body that in the event of a frontal collision such as we had here that when you have got bodies moving forward, you have got heads moving forward into sheet metal and into the back of that cab, much less being ejected? A. They could have been holding on against it, too. Q. Is it your testimony that you believe that these two gentlemen could hold on and ride out that impact of a 35,000-pound vehicle traveling at 60 miles an hour? A. I say they had a better chance between the cab and the compactor unit than they had hanging out over the back. Q. Even though in this particular type thing you don't hold yourself out to actually talk about specifically what injuries would have been received or whether their injuries would have been lessened if they had been in a different position? A. I couldn't guarantee it, no. (Emphasis added.) Pak-Mor challenged Kinsey's testimony on the ground that he was not qualified to testify as an expert and that his testimony concerning the safety of the proposed alternative design was based entirely on his knowledge of certain previous accidents involving garbage trucks, evidence of which was excluded by the trial court on the ground that the previous accidents were not sufficiently similar to show that the garbage compaction unit in the present case was defective. [3] Pak-Mor argues on appeal that Kinsey's opinion testimony should not be considered because, Pak-Mor says, it was based entirely on speculation and conjecture and was of no obvious benefit to a lay juror. The record suggests that the trial court agreed with Pak-Mor and excluded Kinsey's testimony for purposes of ruling on the summary judgment motion. As previously noted, the truck involved here is the kind of complex product as to which one must present expert testimony to prove an alleged defect. We fail to see how a lay juror could reasonably be expected to determine whether a garbage compaction unit with riding platforms designed behind the cab would be safer than a design with the riding platforms mounted on the rear, without the assistance of expert testimony. Brooks, supra. However, a witness must be qualified as an expert before he can give an opinion as an expert. McKelvy v. Darnell, 587 So.2d 980 (Ala.1991). To qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge, skill, experience, or training that his opinion will be considered in reason as giving the trier of fact light upon the question to be determined. See generally C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 127.01(5)(b) (4th ed. 1991), and the cases collected therein; and see the cases collected at 9 Ala.Digest Evidence Key Nos. 535, 536 (1989). A witness's testimony cannot be based on mere speculation and conjecture. See Alabama Power Co. v. Robinson, 447 So.2d 148,153-54 (Ala.1983) (as a theory of causation, a conjecture is simply an explanation consistent with known facts or conditions, but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference). Furthermore, whether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of that discretion. McKelvy, supra; McElroy's, supra, at § 127.01(5)(b). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Kinsey was not qualified to render an expert opinion as to whether the alternative design proposed by Townsend and Heald would be any safer than the design challenged in this action. Kinsey could not testify that either Townsend or Heald would have escaped injury had he been riding on a platform located behind the cab of the truck. Moreover, although he doggedly insisted that a behind-the-cab placement of the riding platforms would be a safer design, Kinsey could only assume that the injuries Townsend and Heald received would have in some way been reduced by the use of that alternative design. This assumption, when considered in light of Kinsey's overall testimony, his lack of formal training or practical experience in designing garbage trucks, or any on-the-road vehicle for that matter, and his lack of training or experience in the biomechanics of accidents of this kind, amounts to nothing more than speculation or conjecture on his part as to the relative safety of the alternative design. We fail to see how Kinsey's testimony, taken as a whole, could have been of any real benefit to a juror attempting to determine liability in regard to this complex product. Therefore, we must conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Kinsey's testimony. Without that testimony, one of the elements necessary to prove a case under the crashworthiness doctrine (that the design of the compaction unit was unreasonably dangerous) was missing. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not rebut Pak-Mor's prima facie showing made in support of its summary judgment motion, and the trial court properly entered the summary judgment as to Pak-Mor.