Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a plaintiff’s engineering expert failed to meet the requirements for admission under Fed. R. Evid. 702 under the parameters set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Jorge Martins, a welder and mechanic, was painting a piece of fabricated steel with a can of aerosol spray paint primer when the can exploded, causing him to suffer serious injuries, including the loss of his right eye. He sued Sherwin-Williams Co., which manufactured the paint can, and others. The plaintiff alleged the can was defectively designed and manufactured and lacked adequate warnings. On the issue of design defect and failure to warn, the plaintiff retained expert engineer Dale Cagwin. He gave various opinions, including that the can’s necked-in design and double-reduced steel made it more susceptible to exploding when shaken. Cagwin also opined that the paint can’s warning label was insufficient to prevent the plaintiff’s injury and made the can defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The defendant moved to exclude Cagwin’s expert report and testimony, arguing that Cagwin’s educational and professional experience as a civil engineer do not qualify him to opine on the issues he discussed in his report. The plaintiff countered that the fact that Cagwin has not designed a spray paint can goes to the weight, not admissibility, of his testimony, and that the defense is free to cross-examine Cagwin at trial.

Granting the motion, the district court found that whether Cagwin possesses the baseline qualifications to testify about the subject matter at issue relates to his testimony’s admissibility, not its weight. The court concluded that Cagwin was not qualified to testify about spray paint can design, noting that he had a degree in civil engineering, not mechanical engineering, the area of expertise applicable to the design of an aerosol can. The pressure vessels with which Cagwin has experience are structurally distinct from the aerosol can at issue here, the court said.

Turning to the labeling issue, the court found that Cagwin lacked the necessary qualifications to testify on the can’s label. He has no formal education or training on warning labels, the court noted, adding that his professional experience with labels related to his employment at a gas heat equipment company is too attenuated to comport with the specialized knowledge requirement of Rule 702 and Daubert.

The court also said Cagwin’s opinions on spray paint can design are not sufficiently reliable. The expert relies on a report that tested the effect of dropping double- and single-reduced steel cans, the court said, not the effects of shaking cans and the failure-by-shaking at issue here. Cagwin’s failure-by-shaking theory is not widely supported, and he should have conducted his own testing to confirm or refute his theory, the court concluded.

Finally, the court held that Cagwin’s opinion is inadmissible based on his failure to present a safer alternative design and to apply his methodology to the available facts and data. He failed to explain how additional warning language would have prevented the plaintiff’s injury, the court found, concluding that Cagwin’s opinion thus did not suggest any theory of causation.

Consequently, the court held that Cagwin’s report and testimony should be excluded.

Citation: Martins v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 2024 WL 8788942 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2023).