Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Post-Accident Statements

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta

The L Bender - a tube-bending machine - crushed Jeffrey McKenzie at his job in Batesville, Arkansas. He was a lead machine operator at Intimidator, a lawn mower and utility vehicle manufacturer. McKenzie was training a recent hire, Ryan Crank, how to use this machine. Crank was operating the L Bender at the machine's control panel. Because of that panel's location, his back was turned, and he didn't see McKenzie standing near the machine's bending arm. Because of the radar scanner's location, the machine didn't lock out when McKenzie got close to the danger zone. When Crank engaged the L Bender, the arm swung closed, crushing McKenzie. He died from his injuries.

Advocacy Trust is the special administrator of McKenzie's estate. It brought claims for strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn against BLM Group, the L Bender's distributor and installer. The deep issue is the location, or re-location, of the control panel and radar scanner.

BLM Group sought to exclude some opinions by Advocacy Trust's expert witness, Peter Chen.

Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Post-Accident Statements

Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

Peter Chen, M.S.M.E., M.B.A., P.E., CFEI, CVFI earned a Master of Science and a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he focused on Tribology, the study and application of the principles of friction, lubrication and wear. He has established his career in the field of forensic engineering in areas such as: fire cause and origin investigation; product failure and liabilities; accident reconstruction; car and truck failure analysis; industrial equipment (manufacturing, production, assembly, construction and HVAC); elevator/escalator failure analysis; worksite safety; aviation; medical/rehabilitative and exercise equipment; warnings and instruction; and transportation, including railroad mishap investigation.

Want to know more about the challenges Peter Chen has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

First, the Court excluded Chen's conclusion that BLM didn't install the control panel and radar scanner in the correct places. He's right, of course, on the preliminary point: the panel and scanner were mislocated the day of the accident. But his last step -that BLM was responsible for their mislocation when McKenzie was injured -lacked a sufficient record foundation. It was not based on any scientific authority or principle.

Chen speculated that BLM Group installed these things where they were on the day of the accident based on the lack of bolt marks on the floor outside the enclosure. He also cited the OSHA report-but the referenced parts of that report deal with mislocation in general, not mislocation at installation. It's undisputed, though, that Intimidator was responsible for attaching the control panel and scanner to the floor. And Chen's speculation contradicted the undisputed evidence of those with personal knowledge of the location facts.

Second, the Court did not exclude Chen's opinion that BLM Group's one-operator warning was insufficient. He said manufacturers and distributors should assume multiple users at one time for large machines like the L Bender. Therefore, a warning alone isn't enough. The L Bender needed to be properly safeguarded. Here Chen applied engineering principles and safety guidelines to the facts of record. Last, Chen's opinion about McKenzie's post-accident statements was not excluded. Chen applied his findings to the issue of McKenzie's fault. He's entitled to address McKenzie's statements.

Held

The Court partly granted and partly denied BLM Group's motion to exclude some of Peter Chen's opinions.

Key Takeaway

Even if Chen's contrary opinion was admitted into evidence, the jury would have to speculate to conclude otherwise. Chen's "no bolt holes, therefore no relocation" theory is a conjecture, adrift from the undisputed facts about Intimidator's obligation to attach the L Bender to the floor (or not) and where those with personal knowledge saw the control panel and the radar scanner installed and operating.

Case Details:

Case Caption:

Advocacy Trust LLC V. BLM Group USA Corporation

Docket Number:

3:24cv8

Court Name:

United States District Court, Arkansas Eastern

Order Date:

September 10, 2026