Metallurgy Expert Allowed to Opine on Foreign Object Debris
Posted on December 22, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises from an accident involving a Robinson R44 II helicopter, registration N442VB (“Helicopter”), that occurred on the evening of December 30, 2021, in Levy County, Florida. The Helicopter was being flown at night by the owner-pilot, Ronald Hicks (“Pilot Hicks”), from a local friend’s residence to his private property. At the time of the accident, Pilot Hicks had less than ten hours of night flight experience in helicopters and was not certified under Instrument Flight Rules (“IFR”). Mr. Hicks, Shelly Kate Hicks, and their two children sustained fatal injuries.
Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendant’s metallurgical expert Dr. Gary J. Fowler.
Metallurgy Expert Witness
Dr. Gary Jefferson Fowler is a registered professional metallurgical engineer with nearly fifty years of experience in metallurgy, materials science, and failure analysis.
He holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. (1976) in engineering fields related to metallurgy and materials science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
Discussion by the Court
Qualifications
To begin with, Plaintiffs argued that Fowler opined regarding what they characterize as “accident reconstruction and piloting issues” despite being unqualified to do so.
The Court has reviewed Fowler’s expert report and finds that his conclusions are squarely within the realm of his expertise as a metallurgist. Plaintiffs may vigorously cross-examine Fowler’s methodology and conclusions at trial, but they have not demonstrated exclusion is warranted on these grounds.
Methodology
Second, Plaintiffs argued that Fowler relied on insufficient facts or data and his methodology was unreliable. Plaintiffs argued that Fowler did not properly substantiate several opinions, including those regarding foreign object debris “FOD,” that the marks on the crankshaft were “smears,” not “gouges,” and that the helicopter was under power at the time of the crash.
Whether Fowler “selected the best data set to use . . . is a question for the jury, not the judge.” Plaintiffs are certainly free to cross-examine Fowler regarding perceived deficiencies in his data or conclusions, but they have not demonstrated exclusion is warranted.
Substantial Similarity Doctrine
Plaintiffs also claimed that the substantial similarity doctrine warrants exclusion of Fowler’s comparison of the instant crash with other crashes. But the substantial similarity doctrine “applies when one party seeks to admit prior accidents or occurrences involving the opposing party” to demonstrate, for example, notice, lack of safety for intended uses, strength of a product, or causation.
Plaintiffs did not include this standard or addressed why it might apply here, where Defendant, not Plaintiffs, seeks to admit similar crashes. Plaintiffs’ application is limited to arguing that Fowler is “seeking to compare the instant crash to another crash that is dissimilar while seeking to argue that the causes of each crash are similar.” But this is not the import of Fowler’s comparisons. Fowler used elements of the other crashes as discrete points of reference for his metallurgical opinions, for example, that “if a crankshaft gear bolt is improperly installed and suffered from lack of torque, like in the New Jersey accident, then the dowel fracture would occur soon after the overhaul . . . or manufacture,” and that “crashes involving engines under power will exhibit similar signatures to those seen here.” Again, Plaintiffs may cross-examine Fowler regarding perceived deficiencies in these comparisons, but they have not demonstrated exclusion is warranted.
Assistance to the Trier of Fact
Plaintiffs argued that Fowler’s opinions are cumulative, prejudicial, and will not assist the trier of fact. Plaintiffs claimed that Fowler’s testimony will be cumulative when combined with Defendant’s other experts Russo and Knuteson. The Court has already agreed that Russo’s testimony will be needlessly cumulative and has granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude on those grounds. Further, the Court has also agreed that, at this juncture, Knuteson’s testimony will also be needlessly cumulative, and has granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude on those grounds without prejudice for Defendant to renew its reponse.
Finally, Plaintiffs requested that Fowler be bound to the opinions contained within his expert report. The Court absolutely agreed that no expert may offer opinions not within their expert report.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit Defendant’s metallurgical expert Dr. Gary Fowler.
Key Takeaway
The Court recognizes and appreciates the importance of its gatekeeping function. It routinely grants Daubert motions when appropriate. In this case, the Court has reviewed Fowler’s expert report and finds that his conclusions are squarely within the realm of his expertise as a metallurgist.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Meteorological Opinions Excluded
Avionics Expert Allowed to Opine on Engine Failure
Piloting Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Spatial Disorientation
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Law V. Avco Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv3 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division |
| Order Date: | November 03, 2025 |
