8th Circuit Upholds Exclusion of Design Defect Testimony

Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court's exclusion of a plaintiff's expert testimony that a hay baler was defectively designed because it failed to incorporate certain safety features. The plaintiff was injured when he was attempting to clear blockage at the intake point:

While baling hay on July 10, 2001, Wagner noticed that the baler had stopped accepting hay. With the power supply to the baler still engaged, Wagner stepped off the tractor and approached the baler to investigate. Wagner leaned over the baler frame and placed his left hand in hay that was covering the baler's pick-up tines. The tines suddenly began to move, and Wagner's hand was pulled into the baler's compression rollers. After the passage of some time, Wagner elected to self-amputate his left hand.

(Only someone from the legal profession could write that last sentence.)

The plaintiff's two experts suggested that a safer alternative design would have incorporated a safety rail at the intake point, an open-throat intake, and an emergency stop device. On summary judgment, the district court marched this testimony through the "Daubert factors" and found it thin on testing, peer review, and general acceptance. The Eighth Circuit's opinion upholds the exclusionary ruling as within the trial court's wide discretion. See Wagner v. Hesston Corp., No. 05-3232 (8th Cir. June 8, 2006) (Murphy, Bowman, & Benton, JJ.).