Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EVIDENTIARY ISSUES—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—Pa. Super.: Verdict for tire, helmet makers and seller stands in motorcycle crash case, (Oct 25, 2017)

By Susan Lasser, J.D.

In an action arising out of a motorcycle crash caused by a tire blowout and resulting in the death of the motorcycle passenger, a Pennsylvania trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting evidentiary objections by the administrator of the decedent’s estate, a Pennsylvania superior court ruled, affirming the lower court (Anderson v. Pirelli Tire, LLC, October 24, 2017, Moulton, H.).

The decedent was a passenger on a Harley Davidson motorcycle when the rear tire had a blowout that resulted in a crash, killing her. The tire, a Metzeler ME 880 tire, was manufactured by Pirelli Tire LLC and Lemans Corporation d/b/a Drag Specialties (Pirelli). The decedent’s husband, who was the owner of the vehicle and is the administrator of the decedent’s estate, was operating the vehicle at the time of the crash. He asserted a strict liability claim against Pirelli and Susquehanna Valley Harley Davidson a/k/a and/or d/b/a Fat Willie’s Cycles, Inc. (SVHD), alleging that the tire manufactured by Pirelli and sold to the administrator by SVHD had a manufacturing defect that caused the accident.

The administrator subsequently filed a motion in limine to preclude the parties from introducing issues and facts concerning negligence in his strict liability claim. The trial court found that evidence relating to the over-deflection/under-inflation of the tire was admissible as evidence of causation, but that Pirelli and SVHD could not argue negligence.

Helmet claims. In addition, the administrator alleged a strict liability claim against SVHD, AGV Lazer USA, LLC (AGV Lazer), and Harley Davidson Motor Company Group, Inc., as well as a negligence claim against SVHD, relating to a helmet that AGV Lazer manufactured and that SVHD sold to the decedent. The defendants offered the expert testimony of a biomechanical engineer to defend against the claims that the helmet was defective and that SVHD acted negligently in selling the helmet. The administrator objected to the engineer’s testimony, claiming that the engineer was not an expert in helmet design and safety and that the scope of his testimony went beyond the fair scope of his expert report. The trial court, however, overruled the objections, allowing the testimony.

Trial results and post-trial motion. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Pirelli, SVHD, and AGV Lazer finding that: neither the tire nor the helmet was defective; the condition of the tire did not breach an implied warranty; and SVHD was not negligent when it sold the helmet to the decedent. The estate administrator filed a motion for post-trial relief, which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the administrator raised the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when it allowed defendants Pirelli and SVHD "to conflate and introduce issues of facts concerning negligence" into the administrator’s strict liability claim against the two defendants; (2) whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when it permitted the biomechanical engineer expert to testify concerning "matters beyond the scope of his expertise"; and (3) whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when it permitted the expert to testify regarding matters beyond the fair scope of his expert report.

Admissibility of evidence. The appellate court rejected the administrator’s argument that the trial court erred by allowing the tire maker and the seller to present a comparative negligence theory in a strict liability manufacturing defect case. The administrator argued that the questioning concerning the steps taken by the administrator and the decedent to ensure their safety on the motorcycle, the air pressure of the tire, and the weight carried on the motorcycle at the time of the trip was evidence regarding the couple’s negligence and, therefore, was improperly permitted. The superior court, however, applying a deferential standard of review, found that the trial court’s admission of the challenged evidence on grounds of impeachment evidence and as causation evidence did not abuse the lower court’s discretion.

Expert testimony. The administrator also argued that the trial court erred in permitting the expert testimony by the engineer because (1) he testified to matters beyond the scope of his expertise and (2) he testified to matters beyond the fair scope of his expert report. The superior court, however, disagreed. On the assertion that the expert was permitted to testify beyond the scope of his expertise, the administrator asserted that it was error to allow SVHD to question the expert regarding motorcycle helmet design and safety issues because while the engineer was an expert in biomechanical engineering, he had no education in or experience with motorcycle helmet design and safety. The trial court found that the engineer was not offered as an expert in motorcycle helmet design, but was offered as an expert in biomechanical engineering. In addition, the trial court said, the engineer was "certainly qualified" as an expert in his field, holding a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering with a focus in biomechanics from Cornell University. Moreover, the type of calculations he did as a biomechanical engineer would assist the court in analyzing the administrator’s claims against the seller as to the helmet and its relationship to the decedent’s injuries. The appellate court noted Pennsylvania’s liberal standard for qualification of experts, and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert to testify. Moreover, the administrator was permitted to, and did, question the expert at trial regarding his limited experience with helmets prior to the case. This went to the credibility of his testimony and to the weight the jury chose to give the testimony.

Finally, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the expert’s testimony was within the fair scope of his report. The administrator contended that the expert testified to matters beyond the scope of his report, including standards, regulations, and testing applicable to helmets. As such, the administrator complained that he was denied an opportunity to adequately prepare a meaningful response. The standard applied by the appellate court was that the admission of expert testimony was within the trial court’s sound discretion and that its decision would not be disturbed without a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. An expert’s testimony on direct examination is to be limited to the fair scope of the expert’s pre-trial report. The court could not find that the administrator was prejudiced in this case. One concern by the administrator was the expert’s testimony about whether the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) requires any type of standards for manufacturers of helmets. The record was clear that the expert had reviewed the applicable ASTM standards in forming his report and took them into consideration in reaching his conclusions. Thus, the trial court found the testimony was within the fair scope of his expert report and was, therefore, properly admitted.

The case is No. 1327 MDA 2016.

Attorneys: Steven M. Mezrow (Pansini & Mezrow) for James A. Anderson, Jr. William C. Stubits (German, Gallagher & Murtagh, PC) and Peter Q. Ezzell (Law Office of Peter Q. Ezzell) for Pirelli Tire, LLC and Lemans Corp. d/b/a Drag Specialties. Richard J. Perr (Fineman Krekstein & Harris, PC) for AGV Lazer USA, LLC. Mark Eric Gebauer (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC) for Harley Davidson Motor Co. Group, LLC. Maureen A. Jordan (Hendrzak & Lloyd) for Harley-DavidsonMotorGroup, Inc., Fat Willie's Cycles, Inc. d/b/a SusquehannaValleyHarley-Davidson/Bue.

Companies: Pirelli Tire, LLC; Lemans Corp. d/b/a Drag Specialties; AGV Lazer USA, LLC; Harley Davidson Motor Co. Group, LLC; Harley-DavidsonMotorGroup, Inc., Fat Willie's Cycles, Inc. d/b/a SusquehannaValleyHarley-Davidson/Bue

Cases: CourtDecisions EvidentiaryNews ExpertEvidenceNews DesignManufacturingNews JuryVerdictsNewsStory PennsylvaniaNews