Engineering Expert’s Testimony on the Lack of a Clean-Out Tool Excluded
Posted on November 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff David Vakili alleged that a snow thrower was defective because its design lacked a simple safety feature—a cleanout tool. To help prove his case, Vakili enlisted the support of Jack Krafchick, P.E., who authored an expert report finding the subject snow thrower defective and the cause of Vakili’s injuries. Defendants MTD Products Inc. and Tractor Supply Company filed a motion to exclude Krafchick’s report.
Engineering Expert Witness
Jack Krafchick, P.E. provided consulting engineering services to the insurance and legal community for over 30 years. This work has included analysis, accident reconstruction, and testimony covering a wide range of issues related to machine safety, project engineering, construction practices, and construction site safety.
Discussion by the Court
Krafchick evaluated MTD’s design of the subject snow thrower using the “Safety Hierarchy” technique. He concluded that it would have been impossible for MTD to eliminate the hazards of the impeller on the snow thrower completely, nor would it have been able to provide adequate safeguarding.
While he recognized MTD provided warnings about the potential hazards with its snow thrower, Krafchick faulted the company for failing to include safety equipment with the machine. Specifically, he believed the company could have easily provided a cleanout tool, to help clear clogs of snow with the machine. Krafchick opined that it was MTD’s failure to include a cleanout tool that caused Vakili’s injuries.
According to the Court, Krafchick’s report summarily concluded the “lack of a clean-out tool caused Vakili’s injury.” It is not clear what “methods and procedures of science” Krafchick used to come to his conclusion on causation. He is a “consulting engineer,” not a behavioral scientist. Neither Krafchick in his report nor Vakili in his briefing explain what qualifications Krafchick has in human psychology such that he could say that if a cleanout tool had been provided, Vakili would have used it.
To the extent Vakili may wish to claim the idea of causation would be obvious, then Krafchick’s opinion would not “fit” the current case.
Held
The Court granted MTD’s motion in limine to the extent it wished to preclude Jack Krafchick from offering testimony on causation.
Key Takeaway:
An expert’s opinion must be one that “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Thus, if Krafchick is not using his expertise to offer an opinion, it is not one that could help the jury and must be excluded.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Vakili V. MTD Prods. Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv104 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Middle |
| Order Date: | November 10, 2025 |
