Late last week the Thompson Coburn Products Liability team of Rick Mueller, Heather Counts and Jeaniene Dickey secured yet another win for Yamaha, continuing a series of victories on the critical issue of excluding plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.
In the most recent case, Ruggerio v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Thompson Coburn team succeeded in excluding the plaintiff’s expert in product safety management, William Kitzes, a former employee of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Kitzes, who has testified more than 500 times, intended to tell the jury in this case that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by allegedly inadequate warning labels on a Yamaha FZR WaveRunner personal watercraft. The plaintiff, however, testified that she had not read the Yamaha warnings.
Yamaha filed a motion to exclude Kitzes, which was argued by Rick Mueller. On March 31, 2017, the federal district court granted Yamaha’s motion and issued a 35-page opinion agreeing that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible. Although the federal court found Kitzes “has at least the minimum of education, training and experience to testify about warning labels generally,” it held that Kitzes’ warnings opinions were unreliable for a number of reasons outlined in Thompson Coburn’s briefs, including the absence of testing.
Ruling that Kitzes’ warnings testimony was unreliable and, thus, inadmissible, the Federal Court cited another recent case handled by the same Thompson Coburn team (with assistance from Allison Manger), Hickerson v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 2016 WL 4367141 (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2016). In the Hickerson case, where another plaintiff’s expert — Dr. Anand Kasbekar, an engineer — sought to opine that Yamaha’s warnings system was inadequate (and the plaintiff, again, had not read or followed the relevant warnings), a federal district court granted Yamaha’s motion that made clear that the expert failed to support his warnings opinions with testing, relevant research or studies. The federal court in Ruggerio described the Hickerson ruling as “persuasive” authority, and excluded Kitzes, stating that Kitzes also lacked the testing and other support necessary to testify regarding Yamaha’s warnings.
This decision in Ruggerio is one in a series of successful efforts by this Thompson Coburn Products Liability team to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses pre-trial, regarding both warnings and design defect theories.
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an â€˜engagement letterâ€™).
By clicking the â€˜ACCEPTâ€™ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the â€˜ACCEPTâ€™ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.