Plaintiff Tabria Montgomery’s father, Michael Montgomery sustained fatal injuries while operating a Bobst Mastercut 145 PER 2.0 Die-Cutter machine. She asserted claims individually on behalf of herself and her father’s estate against Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc. (“Bobst NA”) for strict products liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survival.
Bobst NA filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s economic expert, Kristin K. Kucsma, M.A.
Economics Expert Witness
Kristin K. Kucsma, M.A. has worked extensively on cases involving personal injury, wrongful death, employment law, wrongful incarceration, mass torts, punitive damages and lost profits.
She spent over 13 years teaching economics at the undergraduate and graduate level at Saint Peter’s College, Rutgers, Seton Hall and Drew Universities. Her areas of expertise include American Economic History, Applied Micro Economic Theory, banking and financial markets and corporate finance. Ms. Kucsma is an active member of the National Association of Forensic Economics and the Eastern Economics Association, a member of the American Economics Association, and a former Member of the District Ethics Committee, Office of Attorney Ethics of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. She earned a B.A., summa cum laude, in Economics from Seton Hall University, an M.A. from Rutgers University, and currently is ABD at Rutgers University.
Discussion by the Court
A. Reliability
1. Lost Future Earnings
Bobst NA argued that Kucsma’s selection of Montgomery’s 2020 earnings as his “projected earnings base” is unsupported and “driven by assumptions supplied by counsel rather than by verifiable employment data.”
It argued that 2020 was a “marked spike” in earnings because Montgomery worked significant amounts of overtime as a feeder that he never did as a die cutter operator. Bobst NA also highlighted that Kucsma could not state when Montgomery changed roles or how long he was out of work in 2021 during her deposition.
The Court found that Kucsma’s opinion on Montgomery’s lost future earnings is reliable and may be offered to a jury. She bases it on her significant knowledge, experience, and review of the record, including Montgomery’s paystubs from November 2016 until February 2022, his federal tax documents from 2017 to 2022, and responses to a general “preliminary fact-finding questionnaire.”
Bobst NA repeatedly contended that Kucsma’s deposition testimony shows that she relied on Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations rather than the objective record. In any event, Bobst NA cited no authority for the proposition that an economics expert may not partially rely on an attorney’s representations.
Bobst NA also attacked Kucsma’s conclusions as inconsistent with the record. It maintained that the work detail report shows Montgomery worked less overtime as a die cutter operator than as a feeder and only worked as a feeder in 2020. These are not “significant errors” that go to the admissibility of Kucsma’s opinion. They go to its weight.
Kucsma can rely on Montgomery’s 2020 earnings because that figure is not “substantially higher than his average annual income.” While a jury may find that “an average or median of Montgomery’s earnings over several years is a more sensible approach” to calculate future earnings loss, Kucsma’s use of Montgomery’s last full year of earnings did not render her opinion unreliable for Rule 702 purposes.
2. Intangible Damages
Bobst NA argued that Kucsma’s opinions regarding damages for loss of companionship and advice-related services are unreliable and unsupported.
It maintained that Kucsma provided “no analysis” or peer-reviewed studies showing that parental interaction is economically equivalent to hourly wages for paid companions, social workers, and financial advisors.
In rendering her opinion, Kucsma relied on certain facts and assumptions about Montgomery, his adult children, and their relationships. There is no indication that Kucsma exaggerated, falsified, or misinterpreted the children’s responses. Indeed, she testified that Montgomery’s children had the opportunity to review the information in her report for its accuracy. Kucsma testified that she followed “the generally accepted method among economists” to attribute a pecuniary value to the intangible losses for which Plaintiff seeks to recover.
The Court held that Kucsma has “good grounds” for her opinion based on her professional experience as a forensic economist and her testimony that her application of a services-based valuation framework is generally accepted within the relevant professional community.
B. Fit
Bobst NA also argued that Kucsma’s intangible damages opinion will not assist the jury, i.e., it does not fit, because it “invades the province of the jury.”
The Court found that Kucsma’s explanation of the pecuniary value of advice, counsel, and companionship services will be “helpful in providing the jury with guidance and in avoiding the potential for undue speculation.” Specifically, her testimony regarding the hourly rates for companionship and advice-related services will assist the jury in assigning value to Plaintiff’s intangible losses.
However, testimony concerning the frequency with which Montgomery provided such services is more appropriately elicited from his children themselves. Likewise, Kucsma’s presentation of specific damages calculations—derived from mathematical formulas incorporating the average hours of services rendered—would not assist the jury in assessing Plaintiff’s damages. As such, “there is no need for her expert testimony on these issues.”
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Bobst NA’s motion to exclude the testimony of Kristin K. Kucsma. Bobst NA’s motion is granted to the extent it sought to exclude Kucsma’s opinions as to the number of hours that Montgomery provided advice, counseling, and companionship services to his children, as well as her calculation of Plaintiff’s damages based on those estimates. Bobst NA’s motion is denied to the extent that it sought to exclude Kucsma’s opinions about Montgomery’s lost future earnings and the pecuniary value of advice, counseling, and companionship services.
Key Takeaway
It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine when a Plaintiff’s testimony about the decedent’s services will suffice and when an expert’s further testimony will aid the jury to make a reasonable evaluation of those services. Where such testimony is admitted, it should be followed by a charge that the expert’s opinion is only advisory, and that the jury should make its own determination of the economic value of decedent’s lost services.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Biomechanics Expert Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Death
Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on Pain and Suffering
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Montgomery V. Bobst Mex SA |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv367 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern |
| Order Date: | April 30, 2026 |
Leave a Reply