This action arises from an explosion and resulting injuries Dawn Clary incurred while using a Power Quick Pot model Y6D-36 pressure cooker (the “pressure cooker”), marketed and distributed by Defendant Tristar Products, Inc. (“Tristar”).
Clary brought this action against Tristar for her injuries from the explosion, alleging defective design, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and failure to warn.
Also, Clary filed a motion to exclude Tristar’s expert witness, Robert S. Giachetti’s “opinions as to the placement of Plaintiff’s arms at the time of the explosion.”
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Robert Salvatore Giachetti is a licensed professional engineer who holds a Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. He has participated in numerous joint examinations of pressure cookers and performed independent research on the trajectory of expulsed contents from a pressurized pressure cooker and its potential for scald injuries, which was published in the Journal of Burns.
Discussion by the Court
Based on his analysis and the materials provided to him, Giachetti opined at his deposition that Clary “should have substantial burns on both forearms, which are not recorded in the medical records” if Clary had her hands on the lid as she claims.
However, Clary asserted that Giachetti’s expertise as a biomechanical engineer and his methodology did not enable him to render a reliable opinion on burn injuries or a derivative opinion on the placement of Clary’s hands based on her burn injuries.
The issue before the Court was not whether Giachetti is qualified to testify as an expert generally, but whether his proffered opinion on Clary’s hand placement is within his expertise.
First, Clary contended that Giachetti relied on inconsistent evidence to develop his opinion because the photograph of Clary’s injuries “clearly demonstrates” Clary had burns on her forearms. Second, Clary contended that Giachetti failed to adequately consider or test the effect of Clary’s clothing at the time of the incident on the severity of her burns. Finally, Clary contended that the Giachetti conducted did not account for the trajectory of the lid and the pressure cooker’s contents when the user had her hands on the lid, like Clary has repeatedly testified.
Analysis
The Court agreed that Giachetti was qualified to testify as to the trajectory of the pressure cooker’s expulsed contents based on burn placement. His analysis based on burn placement is based on sufficiently reliable methodology. As Giachetti outlined, his analysis was premised on two scientific facts (1) hot fluids burn skin, and (2) fluids cannot permeate the solid walls of a pressure cooker. Based on his scientific study, which was peer-reviewed, Giachetti determined the trajectory of the expulsed fluids would have contacted Clary’s hands had they been on the lid at the time of the explosion. Because Clary’s shirt was not protective of other areas of skin, whether the shirt was long-sleeved or short-sleeved was irrelevant to Giachetti’s analysis.
Giachetti premised his opinion on the placement of Clary’s hands during the incident on the location of “severe burns” on her body.
As a result, the Court found that Defendant has shown that it is more likely than not that Giachetti’s expert knowledge will help the jury understand the evidence and help them determine how this accident happened.
However, the Court is not satisfied that Giachetti’s expertise in biomechanical engineering enables him to make any burn diagnoses additional to those made by the medical professionals at University of Nebraska Medical Center, even if to diagnose the burns to Clary’s forearms as minor. In sum, Giachetti’s background and experience does not indicate that he has the qualifications or experience to diagnose burns.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert Giachetti, Ph.D.
Key Takeaway:
Any testimony about Giachetti’s diagnosis of Clary’s injuries was excluded because Giachetti’s background and experience did not indicate that he had the qualifications or experience to diagnose burns.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Clary V. Tristar Products, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 4:22cv3230 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nebraska |
| Order Date: | November 05, 2025 |
Leave a Reply