--- title: "Industrial Engineering Expert Witness Permitted to Testify that the Subject Iron Worker Was Defectively Designed" meta: "og:description": "Defendant's arguments against the industrial engineering expert witness focused on credibility issues, which fall under the jury's purview" "og:title": "Industrial Engineering Expert Witness Permitted to Testify that the Subject Iron Worker Was Defectively Designed" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "Defendant's arguments against the industrial engineering expert witness focused on credibility issues, which fall under the jury's purview" --- # Industrial Engineering Expert Witness Permitted to Testify that the Subject Iron Worker Was Defectively Designed Posted on December 19, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff Richard Culley (“Plaintiff” or “Culley”) initiated this action on September 9, 2020, seeking redress for claims of manufacturing defect, breach of expressed or implied warranties, design defect and failure to warn arising from an incident on December 9, 2017 (the “accident”) wherein Plaintiff, while working for Hudson River Truck and Trailer (“Hudson”), sustained serious injuries while using a JAWS IV Ironworker (the “Ironworker”) manufactured by the Defendant Edwards Manufacturing Company of Alberta Lea (“Defendant” or “Edwards”). Plaintiff designated [Kevin Elphick](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kevin-Elphick/1561370), an industrial engineering expert witness, to evaluate the details and subsequent events that led to the injuries. The Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude Elphick’s testimony. ## **Industrial Engineering Expert Witness** [Kevin J. Elphick](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kevin-Elphick/1561370) is an independent industrial engineer with a B.S. Degree in Industrial Engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (class of 1972), a New Jersey licensed Professional Engineer (1981) and has over 45 years of professional experience. [Want to know more about the challenges Kevin J. Elphick has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1561370) ## **Discussion by the Court** #### **Kevin Elphick’s Testimony** To establish a design defect, Culley must prove that the ironworker wasdefective at the time it left Edwards’s control and that the defective design was the actual and proximate cause of his injuries. Defendants argued that Elphick has not provided data to support his opinion that the subject ironworker was defectively designed or that any proposed alternative design would have prevented Culley’s accident. Rather, Elphick’s opinions constitutes the type of _ipse dixit_ that courts routinely hold should be precluded from evidence. #### **Analysis** Under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20requires%20that%20the,help%E2%80%9D%20the%20trier%20of%20fact.), expert testimony must meet standards of reliability and relevance. Courts assess whether the expert is qualified and whether their testimony is based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and proper application of those methods. Courts must focus on the purported expert’s principles and methodology, not on the expert’s conclusions. The Court held that the Defendant’s arguments primarily questioned Elphick’s credibility, which was a matter for the jury and not grounds for excluding expert testimony. In _[Bravo v. Shamailov, 221 F. Supp. 3d 413, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)](https://casetext.com/case/bravo-v-shamailov)_, it was determined that the jury is responsible for determining a witness’ credibility and the weight of their testimony. Since the Defendant’s motion did not address the relevant factors for excluding expert testimony under Rule 702, the Court denied the motion to preclude Elphick’s testimony. ## **Held** The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to preclude Plaintiff’s industrial engineering expert witness Kevin Elphick’s testimony. ## **Key Takeaway:** The Court emphasized that challenges to Elphick’s credibility should be evaluated by the jury, not used as grounds for exclusion. The motion to preclude Elphick’s testimony failed to substantively address the standards under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which instructs district courts to ensure that: “(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” The Court found that the Defendant’s arguments focused on credibility issues, which fall under the jury’s purview. As a result, the Court denied the motion. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Corrections Expert's Standard of Care Testimony Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-23T161938.085.jpg) [**Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/industrial-engineering-expert-witness-permitted-to-testify-that-the-subject-iron-worker-was-defectively-designed/corrections-experts-standard-of-care-testimony-admitted)![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/industrial-engineering-expert-witness-permitted-to-testify-that-the-subject-iron-worker-was-defectively-designed/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/industrial-engineering-expert-witness-permitted-to-testify-that-the-subject-iron-worker-was-defectively-designed/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/industrial-engineering-expert-witness-permitted-to-testify-that-the-subject-iron-worker-was-defectively-designed/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/industrial-engineering-expert-witness-permitted-to-testify-that-the-subject-iron-worker-was-defectively-designed/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)