Opinion ID: 755640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony About Product Warnings.

Text: 4 At the time of the accident, Robertson had worked on bridges for over five years and was familiar with the Black & Decker grinder. Norton grinding wheels were purchased separately from the grinder and bore a warning label stating: Warning. Improper use may cause grinding wheel breakage and serious injury. Comply with ANSI B7.1, OSHA, and safety guide furnished with package. The safety guide was a separate pamphlet shipped to distributors with each box of wheels. It instructed users that grinders should be used with a wheel guard and should be stopped on the work. Williams placed these pamphlets near its display of grinding wheels but did not instruct employees to make sure customers received them. Robertson's father purchased grinding wheels from Williams but did not pick up the safety guide. When injured, Robertson was using a grinder without a wheel guard (though he knew OSHA regulations require a guard), and he lifted the still-spinning wheel off the work before it exploded. 5 A principal witness at trial was Robertson's ceramics expert, Dr. Ross Firestone. Much of Dr. Firestone's testimony concerned whether the grinding wheel exploded because of an unreasonably dangerous manufacturing defect. At issue here is his further testimony that Norton's product warnings were completely inadequate because the warning label did not explain improper use, because a copy of the safety guide was not enclosed with each wheel in blister pack packaging, and because the warning label's cross reference to a 120-page ANSI publication was ineffective. The district court overruled defendants' attempts to exclude this testimony by a motion in limine and by a continuing objection at trial. We review the district court's decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, ----, 118 S.Ct. 512, 519, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). 6 Our prior opinions have noted problems with expert testimony regarding the adequacy of product warnings: 7 In the first place the questions called for opinions of the witnesses on one of the ultimate questions in the case; they invaded the province of the jury on a question which the jury was entirely capable of answering without the benefit of their expert opinion, were we to assume that these witnesses had qualified as experts on the adequacy of labeling. 8