Plaintiff India Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed this product liability lawsuit against Tabletops Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a TTU’s (“TTU”) on August 1, 2022. Plaintiff sought to recover damages from an August 24, 2020 incident in which she sustained burns on her chest, upper abdomen, and legs after her Pressure Cooker ejected hot contents on her when she tried to open the device after cooking. The subject cooker was a Phillippe Richard 6-Quart Stovetop Pressure Cooker, Model Number YPC-1301, marketed, imported, distributed and sold by Defendant Tabletops.
Smith alleged that her Pressure Cooker contained a manufacturing and/or design defect that allowed the lid to be removed before the Pressure Cooker de-pressurized.
Motion to strike and exclude
Plaintiff retained Dr. David Rondinone, Ph.D., P.E. and Derek King, M.S., P.E., of Berkeley Engineering and Research (“BEAR”) in Berkeley, California. They testified that the subject pressure cooker was defectively manufactured and designed. The defective manufacture allowed for misalignment of the lid handle in a way that reduced the effectiveness of the lid interlock, part of which was incorporated into the lid handle. Moreover, the pressure cooker was also defectively designed in that it was not equipped with a baffle or screen to prevent food material in the cooker from potentially clogging the float valve for the lid interlock.
They also insisted that Tabletops’ lack of risk assessment contributed to the failure experienced during Smith’s incident.
Tabletops filed a motion to strike and exclude the testimony of both experts under Rule 702 due to the unreliability of the principles and methods of their testing that formed the basis of their opinions.
TTU also asserted that Rondinone and King’s reports should be stricken and excluded because their reports failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). In addition, TTU maintained that Rondinone and King should not be permitted to supplement their expert report or to correct their report after receiving TTU’s expert disclosures prior to the deadline for rebuttal disclosures.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witnesses
David Rondinone holds an M.S. degree and a Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, majoring in material behavior and design and minoring in structures and dynamics and electronic controls. He also holds a B.S. degree in Engineering Physics and a B.A. degree in Astrophysics from the University of California, Berkeley. From 1993 to the present, he has worked as a Mechanical Engineering Consultant, and is a principal of Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc. (referred to herein as “BEAR”). He has worked for more than 30 years in the areas of failure analysis, design, and risk assessment of consumer and industrial equipment, including pressure cookers.
Derek King holds an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Ohio University, and a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a registered professional engineer in the State of California. From 2009 to the present, he has worked as an engineer for Berkeley Engineering and Research in the areas of failure analysis, design, and risk assessment of consumer and industrial equipment, including pressure cookers.
Discussion by the Court
Rondinone and King’s Opinions are Admissible under 702
The Court held that both Rondinone and King are qualified engineers with experience in the analysis of pressure cookers.
The record demonstrated that Smith’s experts reviewed the subject pressure cooker and an exemplar cooker and performed testing based on their review. Having examined the record in this case, the parties’ arguments, and the controlling authorities, this Court concluded that Rondinone and King’s opinions and anticipated testimony regarding the interlock feature were admissible.
To the extent TTU claimed that Smith failed to disclose sufficient detail regarding the testing to make these opinions and the anticipated testimony admissible, the Court rejected that argument.
Further, the Court concluded that Smith’s expert opinions and testimony on clogging were reliable and relevant based on the experts’ prior experience with pressure cookers and clogging events and the facts of this case, including but not limited to Smith’s deposition testimony and TTU’s statements and warnings. TTU argued that this issue “had no relationship to causation in this matter and was merely fault finding.” The Court rejected TTU’s arguments that these opinions and this proposed testimony were irrelevant or inadmissible, given the facts of this case and TTU’s anticipated arguments regarding what it contended was Smith’s alleged “misuse of the product.” The Court also acknowledged that the parties disputed any purported misuse by Smith.
The parties disputed the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue of TTU not conducting a proper risk assessment, which is why the Court took this portion of TTU’s Daubert motion against both experts under advisement.
Plaintiff Has Met Her Disclosure And Supplementation Burdens Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
TTU contended that, if Smith’s experts relied on any information contained in Exhibits G, H, I, and M in her response to the Daubert motion, those exhibits were not identified in the expert reports. Further, TTU claimed that Smith failed to disclose her experts’ prior testing of other pressure cookers as a basis for their opinions in their reports. For these reasons, TTU sought to strike Rondinone and King’s reports and to exclude them as experts.
Smith maintained that Exhibit G was a user manual for one of TTU’s own pressure cookers and that Exhibit M was the deposition transcript of TTU’s own corporate designee from a prior case. Smith also maintained that Exhibits H and I were user manuals for other types of pressure cookers and that these documents were publicly available documents that Smith located online for use in defending against TTU’s Daubert motion.
TTU filed a separate motion to strike Exhibits G, H, I, and M from Smith’s response in opposition to TTU’s initial motion to strike which was denied by the Court.
The Court observed that Rondinone’s report stated in pertinent part under “Qualifications” that “he has worked for more than 30 years in the areas of failure analysis, design, and risk assessment of consumer and industrial equipment, including pressure cookers.” As to King, the report under “Qualifications” states that “from 2009 to the present, he has worked as an engineer. . . in the areas of failure analysis, design, and risk assessment of consumer and industrial equipment, including pressure cookers.” The Court held that Smith’s experts sufficiently disclosed their prior experience with pressure cookers as a basis for their opinions.
The Court declared that there was no requirement for a supplemental report.
Held
The Court denied, in part, and took under advisement, in part, Tabletops’ motion to strike and exclude David Rondinone and Derek King’s proposed expert opinions and testimony. The Court also denied Tabletops’ motion to strike Smith’s Exhibits G, H, I, and M to her response to Tabletops’ motion to strike and exclude David Rondinone and Derek King.
Key Takeaways:
- Admissibility of Opinions under Rule 702: The Court deemed Rondinone and King’s opinions regarding the interlock feature admissible, considering their qualifications as engineers and their thorough review and testing of the subject pressure cooker.
- Fulfillment of Disclosure and Supplementation Burdens: The Court ruled that Smith met her disclosure and supplementation burdens under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, despite TTU’s contentions regarding Rondinone and King’s reliance on certain exhibits and failure to disclose their prior testing of pressure cookers.
- Reliability and Relevance of Expert Opinions on Clogging: The Court concluded that Smith’s expert opinions and testimony on clogging were reliable and relevant, based on the experts’ extensive experience with pressure cookers and clogging events.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Smith V. Tabletops Unlimited Inc |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv198 |
| Citation: | 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68051 |
| Order Date: | April 15, 2024 |
Leave a Reply