On January 21, 2022, James Raeford Hatcher (“Hatcher”), an employee of South East Grinding, was fatally injured while attempting to unjam a debaler at his workplace. His clothing became entangled in the machine, and he was unable to stop its operation. The machine in question—a “Model BBU.90” debaler—was manufactured by Emerging Acquisitions, LLC. Plaintiff Connie Hatcher, on behalf of Hatcher’s estate, brought claims against Defendant for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant designed, manufactured, and sold the debaler in question and was aware of previous injuries and fatalities involving similar models. Despite this knowledge, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to implement standard safety features—such as human detection sensors or “light curtains”—unless specifically requested by customers. The debaler that killed Hatcher did not have these features.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude Plaintiff’s design engineering expert, Dr. James L. Glancey, arguing he lacked specific experience with recycling machinery and failed to test his proposed design alternatives.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Dr. James L. Glancey holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Davis and is a licensed professional engineer with over 20 years of experience in the field. Furthermore, he has published more than 50 engineering articles and has served as an expert in over 200 product-related matters.
Discussion by the Court
Specificity of Experience
While Glancey lacked direct experience with debalers or recycling machinery, his mechanical engineering background qualified him to offer opinions on industrial machine design. After all, Glancey has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and thirty years of experience teaching product design. He has designed several machines, consulted on failure analysis for various products, and taught courses on both.
The Court held that the Plaintiff was not required to retain an expert specifically in debalers, and found that Glancey was sufficiently qualified to testify under Rule 702.
Alternative Design
Glancey’s proposed alternative designs incorporated light curtain technology and interlock safety features. He specifically testified that such technology has been available for incorporation in similar machines since the 1970’s.
Indeed, Defendant has incorporated a light curtain in other debalers it has manufactured. Plaintiff cited ample authority, uncontroverted by Defendant, to support the proposition that the existence of the alternative technology in the market subdues the need for expansive feasibility analysis or functional testing.
As a result, Glancey’s alternative design opinions were deemed sufficiently reliable under Daubert.
Warnings and Open and Obvious Danger
Defendant argued that Glancey’s warnings analysis was inadmissible because the danger was open and obvious, and no efficacy testing was done.
The Court found that Glancey analyzed the original warnings and identified deficiencies, including the lack of clear unjamming instructions. Whether the danger was sufficiently open and obvious to negate a duty to warn is a factual question for the jury.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. James L. Glancey.
Key Takeaway:
Plaintiff must present a reasonable alternative design, considering cost, safety, and functionality. The need for testing is blunted if the proposed alternative design is simple or is already used in the industry. In this case, the Plaintiff cited ample authority, uncontroverted by Defendant, to support the proposition that the existence of the alternative technology in the market subdues the need for expansive feasibility analysis or functional testing.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Hatcher V. Emerging Acquisitions, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv423 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, South Carolina |
| Order Date: | May 27, 2025 |
Leave a Reply