Fourth Circuit Finds Abuse Of Discretion In Admitting Expert Testimony, Reversing Multi-Million-Dollar Verdict

• Published date: 17 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Product Liability & Safety
• Law Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
• Author: Mr Christopher B. Essig and Francie N. Berger

The Fourth Circuit recently reversed a decision to admit expert evidence in a products liability matter involving the packaging of garage doors/hoods in Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp. There, without expert evidence, the Court found that the Plaintiff-Appellee could not succeed on any of its claims and, therefore, entered judgment in Defendant-Appellant's favor. 2021 WL 3699753 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2021). The case reaffirms the significance of courts making explicit Daubert findings on the record. It also underscores the potential import of making relevance arguments under Daubert, as Defendant was successful in arguing that experts' failures to establish an industry standard or use the applicable standard for a manufacturer's duties under state law made their opinions irrelevant.

In Sardis, Plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of her husband, who died after falling when the handhold for one of Defendant Overhead Door Corporation's ("ODC") packages broke. Id. at *1-2. "Essentially, the Estate alleged that ODC was negligent in designing the Container's handholds, and that this defective design caused [decedent's] injuries." Id. at *2. The Estate offered two experts in support of its claims: Dr. Sher Paul Singh, a packaging design engineer, and Dr. Michael S. Wogalter, an expert in human factors. Id. at *2, *16. Both experts were able to testify at trial, and the jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Id. at *1. ODC appealed, arguing that the expert testimony presented at trial should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Fourth Circuit agreed. Id.

As an initial matter, the Circuit concluded that the court below failed to conduct its gatekeeping functions when it "cursorily dismissed each of ODC's reliability and relevance arguments as only going to weight, not admissibility." Id. at *7. Instead, the Circuit stated that "[w]here the admissibility of expert testimony is specifically questioned, Rule 702 and Daubert require that the district court make explicit findings." Id. at *8. Further, the Circuit held that this error was not harmless, because the testimony offered by Drs. Singh and Wogalter was the only expert "evidence necessary to establish the Estate's causes of action." Id. at *9.

The Circuit then turned to the substantive Daubert challenges and found that neither expert could be admitted under the pertinent gatekeeping requirements.

Dr. Singh "opined that the [packaging] Container should have been designed according to what...