Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityDesign defectExpert testimonyDaubertRule 702expert reliabilitydesign defect

Facts

Unrein was injured while feeding boards into a Timesavers industrial sander at work when her right arm was pulled into the machine after two boards came together on the conveyor belt. She retained Dr. Tarald Kvalseth, who opined that the sander was defectively designed because the infeed area lacked safeguarding and because the conveyor belt did not stop quickly enough after activation of an emergency stop. He suggested several possible safety measures, including a guard, a light beam with a brake, and his preferred solution of a continuous safety trip cord combined with a fast brake. He did not provide drawings showing integration of these features into the sander, photographs of similar machines using them, or other concrete information demonstrating that the proposed modifications would work without impairing the machine's operation.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding Unrein's expert testimony on defective design under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because the proposed alternative safety modifications lacked sufficient indicia of reliability? If the exclusion was proper, summary judgment for Timesavers would stand because Unrein had no other evidence supporting defective design.

Rule

In a diversity case, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by federal law. Under Rule 702 and Daubert, expert testimony must be reliable and relevant so that it will assist the trier of fact; in a design-defect case, an expert proposing safety modifications must demonstrate by some means that the proposed changes would work to protect operators and would not interfere with the machine's utility, though the expert need not necessarily build a prototype.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in St. Louis, Maya Torres sued Ozark Fabrication Works, a fictional Missouri machine maker, after her hand was injured by a sheet-feeding press. Missouri substantive law is unsettled on whether design-defect experts must show a feasible alternative design, and Maya argues the federal judge should follow a permissive state admissibility approach instead of applying Rule 702.

Which standard should the court use to decide whether Maya's engineering expert may testify?

Explanation. The majority held that in diversity cases, admissibility of expert testimony is governed by federal law. The court therefore applies Rule 702 and Daubert, not state admissibility doctrine, when deciding whether a design-defect expert may testify.