Opinion ID: 2649752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use Defect

Text: We also conclude that the district court erred in ruling that Eskridge failed to at least create a genuine factual issue regarding whether the Mongoose contained a use defect, i.e., whether the Defendants “fail[ed] to adequately label, instruct or warn.” Morningstar, 253 S.E.2d at 682. Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: 19 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of expert testimony, for abuse of discretion. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-43 (1997). Whether a product is defective for failure to warn “is to be tested by what the reasonably prudent manufacturer would accomplish in regard to the safety of the product, having in mind the general state of the art of the manufacturing process, including design, labels and warnings, as it relates to the economic costs, at the time the product was made.” Morningstar, 253 S.E.2d at 682–83. The adequacy of the method chosen by the manufacturer to warn the user of a particular danger is generally a question for the jury. See Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 307 S.E.2d 603, 611 (W. Va. 1983). 20 Green testified that the Mongoose was defective for failing to adequately warn users concerning the quick-release system because the warnings appeared only in the owner’s manual and, in Green’s experience, users did not read such warnings when they appeared only in manuals. Regarding Eskridge’s claim that the Mongoose’s warnings were defective, the district court ruled: Eskridge has simply provided no admissible evidence that the warnings were inadequate. Green merely offered his personal opinion that no one should ever rely upon an owner’s manual to give warnings or instructions. This opinion is inadmissible for two reasons. First, Green does not base this opinion on “sufficient facts or data” required for expert opinions to be admissible. FED.R.EVID. 702. Second, while Green may be an expert on bicycle engineering and design, there is no evidence that he is qualified to offer an expert opinion on the standards of the retail industry. Eskridge, 2013 WL 596536, at  (citation omitted). As to the district court’s second point, we note that the Defendants do not even attempt to defend the conclusion that Green was unqualified to testify as an expert as to the warnings. See Appellees’ brief at 16 (“The court did not rule that Mr. Green is unqualified to testify as an expert as to warnings, rather, the court held that Eskridge ‘has simply provided no admissible evidence that the warnings were inadequate.”). A witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. While Green needed only one of those, see Garrett v. 21 Desa Indus., Inc., 705 F.2d 721, 724 (4th Cir. 1983), the record demonstrated that he had them all. See supra, at 7-8. We therefore conclude that to the extent the district court ruled that Green was not qualified to offer an expert opinion regarding the adequacy of the warning here, the court abused its discretion. We also can find no foundation for the district court’s conclusion that Green’s opinion is not based on sufficient facts or data. Green testified to extensively studying the issue of improper installation of quick-release hubs. In Green’s experience, he found that bicycle owners do not generally read their manuals and that quick-release warnings are effective only when a warning label is placed on the quick-release itself or the warnings are actually provided to the consumer at the point of sale. Green’s involvement with hundreds of cases of accidents involving quick-release systems and his decades of experience in the industry in general certainly provided him with a strong foundation for testifying regarding those facts. See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 156 (1999) (“[N]o one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience.”). Defendants contend that Green’s own testimony shows that he in fact has not studied the question of whether people read 22 their bicycle manuals. They particularly note that when Green testified that most bicycle owners do not read their manuals and when he was asked whether that was “because riding a bicycle is kind of intuitive,” he answered, “Well, that’s probably the reason, although I’ve never studied it.” J.A. 246-47. Defendants construe this testimony as meaning that Green had never studied whether people read their manuals. However, when Green’s testimony is viewed in its entirety, it is plain he was stating that he never studied why they do not read their manuals. Defendants also argue that the district court correctly determined that Green’s testimony concerning the inadequacy of the warnings was inadmissible because it was “nothing more than his personal belief, rather than the professional opinion of an expert.” Appellees’ brief at 19. Green’s years of experience as an engineer were well established, however, and he testified that all of the opinions that he provided in Green’s reports and testimony were “to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty.” 5 J.A. 256. That his opinion was a personal opinion 5 To the extent that Defendants are suggesting that Green’s personal conclusions as a professional engineer are not admissible because a plaintiff must demonstrate a deviation from industry standards and customs to prove defectiveness, they are simply incorrect. See Jones v. Patterson Contracting, Inc., 524