Industrial Engineering Expert Witness Permitted to Testify that the Subject Iron Worker Was Defectively Designed

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, 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 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.  

Discussion by the Court

Kevin Elphick’s Testimony

To establish a design defect, Culley must prove that the ironworker was
defective 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 iron
worker 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, 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), 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:

Case caption:	Culley V. Edwards Manufacturing Company Of Albert Lea
Docket Number:	7:20cv7346
Court:	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Dated:	December 17, 2024