Products Liability Law Reporter

A New Jersey appellate court held that an expert report that was based on an engineer’s fact-based conclusions did not constitute an impermissible net opinion.

Louis Magdon was severely injured after losing control of his Harley-Davidson motorcycle on a highway. The motorcycle was towed from the scene and later sold at auction after Magdon’s insurer deemed it a total loss. Magdon filed a products liability suit against Harley-Davidson and a Harley-Davidson dealer, alleging manufacturing defect and negligence. The plaintiff retained professional engineer George Meinschein, who reviewed the incident report, the plaintiff’s deposition, and numerous Harley-Davidson documents before concluding that the incident resulted from a defect in the motorcycle’s anti-locking brake system (ABS).

The defense’s expert report asserted that the plaintiff’s incident was unrelated to an ABS failure in that the motorcycle had not been equipped with an ABS. Meinschein issued subsequent reports, one of which conceded the plaintiff’s motorcycle lacked an ABS. Nevertheless, the expert contended that a brake system defect led to the incident and that an alternative design and manufacturing process would have remedied the defective braking system.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that Meinschein’s report constituted a net opinion unsupported by facts. The trial court granted the motions.

Reversing, the appellate court pointed out that N.J. R. Evid. 703 mandates that expert opinions be grounded in facts or data derived from the expert’s personal observations, the evidence admitted at trial, or data that is the kind on which experts normally rely. Citing case law, the court added that an expert must explain the causal connection between the incident and the plaintiff’s damages. Additionally, the court said, an expert opinion may be grounded in the expert’s personal experience and training.

Here, Meinschein based his conclusions on his observations of the motorcycle’s post-crash photographs and the testimony of the plaintiff, who asserted that he had felt no pressure when applying the front brake, the court said. The court concluded that, therefore, Meinschein did not present a report consisting of mere conclusions in that he provided a factual basis for his assertions and relied on his training and education for support. Although the expert’s conclusions will be subject to cross-examination at trial, the court said, his report was not an impermissible net opinion.

Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Citation: Magdon v. Harley-Davidson USA, 2019 WL 2305732 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 30, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: Paul F. O’Reilly, New York City; and James Vasquez, Clifton, N.J.