Opinion ID: 807056
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Liability Evidence

Text: More substantial, though also unavailing, is Western’s contention that the theory offered by Vandervort to explain the failure of the pump was (1) unreliable and (2) not based on a sufficient factual predicate. At the Daubert hearing, the facts and reliability of Vandervort’s liability and causation testimony were thoroughly explored by the parties and the court. Assessing this testimony and the accompanying documentation ourselves, we conclude that the district court’s decision to admit the evidence – coupled with vigorous cross-examination – was not manifestly erroneous.
“In a case involving scientific evidence, evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 n.9. Relevant questions may include whether a technique or theory is generally accepted in the technical or scientific community, if it “can be or has been tested,” and the potential influence of the rate of error. Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002). The sine qua non, however, is whether in his courtroom presentation the expert used “the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an 7 No. 10-31271 expert in the relevant field.” Valencia, 600 F.3d at 424 (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). Western claims that scientific principles did not underlie Vandervort’s methods. This is incorrect. Vandervort connected a pressure release valve to a device that stores and releases energy: an accumulator. The accumulator stood in for the pump, but allowed for experimentation. Different levels of pressure could be replicated over different time intervals. First came quasi-static testing, which measured baseline characteristics of the Predator Pump. Under a “relatively slow pressurization event” the valve functioned normally, expelling the ball at approximately 900 psi. During the quasi-static test, the Cam-Lok ruptured at 2,007 psi. Next came the dynamic test. It was exactly the same, except that rather than apply it slowly, pressure was introduced in two-thousandths of a second. Vandervort hypothesized before the test that “under a rapid pressure event that ball might be bypassed and the fitting would fail before the ball released.” To control how much pressure was introduced, Vandervort used a disc that is manufactured by a specialized vendor to rupture at a given pressure, here 2,500 psi. During the dynamic test the ball began to extrude from its brass cap, but did not escape, leading the Cam-Lok to break as predicted, as its pins gave way. The company makes much of the fact that Vandervort stated that no textbook lays out these testing protocols. Vandervort explained that the processes cannot be found in a text or manual, because what we did is we took engineering principles, we took experience, and we put together a plan to learn about these components. Now, did we violate the principles and the understanding and the basics of physics in that process? Not at all. We applied our engineering knowledge to create a testing scenario. The district court made a specific finding that the principles behind both the dynamic and quasi-static failure analyses were generally “accepted in the engineering community.” See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594. The absence of textual 8 No. 10-31271 support or published studies is not dispositive when reliable methods are used. See Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 354 (5th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the “district court has wide discretion to admit evidence of experiments conducted under substantially similar conditions.” United States v. Norris, 217 F.3d 262, 270 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Barnes v. Gen. Motors Corp., 547 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1977)). Here, the experiments reconstructed the exact design of the Predator Pump. In fact, it is uncontroverted that the pressure release valve, ball, and Cam-Lok were identical to the ones in the pump used by Roman. Each item was supplied directly from Western or its suppliers and the functioning of the system was not modified.
In addition to being based on reliable methods, expert evidence must “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). “To be ‘helpful’ under Rule 702, the evidence must possess validity when applied to the pertinent factual inquiry.” United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir. 1995). Principally this is a matter of relevance. “Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant, and ergo, non-helpful.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Western argues that the expert testimony is inadmissible on this basis because the theory promoted by Vandervort and Riggs rested on the unfounded assumption that the pump could generate the 2,007 psi of pressure that caused the Cam-Lok to fail during testing.4 This precise issue troubled the district court and was the key reason it convened a Daubert hearing. After Vandervort fully explained his method and calculations, the court held that while Western’s 4 Mathematical calculations by Vandervort based on his estimate of the shearing strength of the pins predicted failure at 2,036 psi. 9 No. 10-31271 “cross-examination was quite effective,” ultimately such doubts affected “the weight of the evidence, as opposed to the admissibility of his testimony.” “The proponent of an expert’s testimony need not prove the testimony is factually correct . . . .” Paz, 555 F.3d at 388. Thus, as to admissibility, the issue is not whether the pump generated the necessary pressure, but instead whether there were enough facts to allow Vandervort’s dynamic pressure theory to be applied reliably to this case. We agree with the district court that there were. This evidence came in three forms, as we discuss. First, a high-pressure event could be inferred from physical features of the Cam-Lok and PRV ball in the actual pump that injured Roman. Riggs, the expert metallurgist, testified at trial that a visual inspection of the pump revealed that “[b]oth pins had been sheared, and . . . [t]he back ends of these pins were still resident in the Cam-Lok connector, [while] the other ends were gone.” The pump’s physical design is such that when the pins shear, the Cam-Lok arms fall away, and the ends of the hose separate. Photographs of the accident scene corroborated that the pins were broken and that the hose coupling had, in fact, disengaged. One of the two sheared pins was recovered, and Western’s expert witness Gregory admitted at the Daubert hearing that both pins sheared. Both Riggs and Vandervort gave expert opinions that the only foreseeable event that would cause both pins to shear as they did was exposure to high pressure. Western posited that Roman had neglected to engage the Cam-Lok fully, or that user manipulation caused the failure of the fitting.5 Yet, when challenged on whether it was possible for the pins to shear if the cam arms were not securely closed, Riggs replied: 5 The district court held Gregory’s opinions that the Cam-Lok had either been forced open or that it was not properly locked inadmissible. At the Daubert hearing, the court characterized them as “speculative theories” and in ruling at trial explained: “I haven’t heard any facts in evidence beyond Mr. Roman saying he actually connected the hose and dogged down the ears. So saying that someone kicked the hose or things to that nature, I’m not going to let [Gregory] testify because it’s just not there.” 10 No. 10-31271 Absolutely not. The pins – the arms have to be connected. They have to be in contact with this male member to be loaded up by the pressure-induced forces on that male member for the pins to shear. If the arm is all the way up, it does not become engaged during the exit of this male member, and so if it’s not engaged, it won’t shear the pin. If one of these arms on this connector right here had been loose, it would still be in that connector. The pin would not have sheared and it would still be in the connector. Riggs offered a similar opinion about how the ball had behaved. The jury was shown a photograph of the ball after the accident. In discussing that photograph, Riggs testified that the observable “reduction in the original diameter” of the ball was clear evidence that during the incident the pressure got high enough to begin the extrusion process of this ball, and it’s clear that the ball came through the . . . hole in the brass cap, not by . . . a shearing process, not by a physical tearing of the material, but it actually – it actually deformed and actually started to extrude the hole and that’s the mechanism by which [it] works. Second, the experts testified that the physical condition of the Cam-Lok sheared in the dynamic test and the partially extruded ball were nearly identical in appearance to the parts recovered from the pump involved in the accident. Not only did the pins shear, and the hose separate in like fashion, but the ball behaved similarly. Third and finally, evidence that the pump could rapidly generate high pressure came from Vandervort’s calculations. Entering the Daubert hearing, both parties’ experts were in agreement that the pump’s diesel engine only had enough horsepower to generate 1,600 psi under ordinary operating conditions. Because this is less than the roughly 2,000 psi necessary under Roman’s theory of liability, Western argues that the expert testimony lacked the factual basis for its admissibility. We conclude this argument fails for two reasons. (1) The valid test results, combined with the ball’s movement and the shearing of the Cam-Lok pins 11 No. 10-31271 sufficiently demonstrated that a rapid high-pressure event could have occurred. (2) As we explain next, Vandervort also provided scientific calculations illustrating how the pump could spike to over 2,000 psi in an instant. The positive displacement pump continuously generates energy while operating. A “pack-up” that interrupts the flow would cause a compression of the stucco material’s “molecules in a smaller and smaller space.” This process builds energy, measured as inertia, which rapidly spikes in a high-pressure event. The district court found Vandervort’s conclusions were based “on the principles of physics and mathematics.” Vandervort also submitted the calculations yielding these results.6 After studying those calculations, Western’s expert admitted that Vandervort had computed them accurately according to a sound methodology. While it is true that Roman did not introduce direct evidence of a pack-up, trial evidence indicated a pack-up was neither a speculative nor a rare phenomenon. The operating manual warned that aggregate can separate from the stucco mixture, which “will not carry through the hose and ‘pack’ (jam up) in the hose.” In bold typeface it further cautions that “[a]ttempting to push past a hose pack is rarely successful and is very dangerous! . . . The Predator pump can build dangerously high pressure very quickly as it is a positive displacement pump.”7 Delahoussaye testified that he had witnessed pack-ups in his experience when the hose kinks or the stucco mix is too dry. Western noted below, and now on appeal, that Delahoussaye testified he believed that the 6 In brief, based on the 120 strokes per minute generated by the pump and the 16 inches of stucco material between the pump mechanism and the coupling, over 3,000 psi could be generated in two-thousandths of a second. 7 The other criticisms raised on appeal by Western such as an improper bulk modulus of stucco (its compressibility), the location of the suspected pack-up, or the strength of the pump’s drive shaft were all contested facts about which the parties’ expert testimony could support rival conclusions. We may not second-guess the jury’s choice between duly qualified experts. See Coffel v. Stryker Corp., 284 F.3d 625, 631 (5th Cir. 2002). 12 No. 10-31271 stucco mix was very wet on the day of the accident. From this, the company urges us to exclude Vandervort’s testimony. We agree with the district court’s assessment when it refused to exclude Vandervort’s testimony: The evidence that’s in the case is that [the hose] could have kinked. The evidence in the case is that there could be a pack-off. Mr. Delahoussaye could be wrong. You can draw inferences from the testimony of the witnesses, but the evidence is that there was a pressurization which occurred. There was certainly contrary evidence, but that was for jurors to weigh. Roman’s liability and causation evidence was admissible under Rule 702.