Products Liability Law Reporter

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court had not erred in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert in a products liability lawsuit arising out of a motorcycle crash.

Angela Nielson was injured and her husband was killed in a motorcycle crash. She and her family sued Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, LLC; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America; and Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The plaintiffs offered the testimony of expert William Woehrle, who opined that alleged defects in the motorcycle’s tire and rim had led to a leak in the vehicle’s rear tire and resulted in the crash. The defendants successfully moved to exclude Woehrle’s testimony, and the district court later granted summary judgment for the defense.

Affirming, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court had used the correct legal standard in assessing the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert. The court noted that the district court had applied the Daubert factors and found an impermissible analytical gap between the scientific principle Woehrle had relied on and his opinion on causation. Thus, the district court was within its discretion in concluding that Woehrle had not provided adequate support for his conclusion that defects in the defendants’ product led to the incident here.

Consequently, the court ruled that summary judgment was proper.

Citation: Nielson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC, 2022 WL 711525 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2022).