Stephen J. Ratcliffe has brought a lawsuit against BRP, the manufacturer, and Tidd’s Sport Shop, Inc. (Tidd’s), the dealer, of a 2019 Can-Am Maverick X3, a utility terrain vehicle (UTV), asserting negligence and strict liability claims arising out of an incident in which Ratcliffe’s UTV rolled onto its side and crushed his arm. The Plaintiff is pursuing design defect and failure-to-warn theories of recovery. During discovery, by report dated September 8, 2022, Ratcliffe designated Dr. Robert J. Nobilini, a professional engineer, as an expert witness.
BRP U.S., Inc. (BRP) filed a motion in limine to exclude the engineering opinions of Nobilini on the ground that they violate the constraints of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the caselaw implementing Daubert and Kumho.
Of Nobilini’s thirteen discrete opinions, BRP specifically focuses on his conclusions that “(i) humans—like Plaintiff—have a natural protective response to extend one’s hand/arm during a UTV rollover; (ii) BRP’s warnings were inadequate or ineffective to prevent the natural protective response; and (iii) the lack of an adequate restraint system to prevent the occupant’s arm from leaving the roll cage during a rollover made the Subject Vehicle unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.”
BRP’s motion includes many catchphrases for expert disqualification. (“unreliable and unscientific opinion testimony,” “no presumption of admissibility,” “untested and demonstrably false,” “inapplicable research studies and misleading, irrelevant and anecdotal videos, rather than testing or literature”). However, when analyzed, the crux of its argument against Nobilini’s testimony is that it is unreliable because he failed to test his opinions about alternative designs. BRP rejected Nobilini’s analogy to the response in a trip-and-fall and describes the analogy as a “classic apples to oranges comparison.”
Biomechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Robert J. Nobilini performs mechanical and biomechanical engineering investigations and analyses of accidents. He offers expert testimony related to slip, trip and fall accidents, automobile accidents, industrial accidents, sports and amusement related accidents, and the safety and failure of products. He is a member of numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Biomechanics, and the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Discussion by the Court
The Court noted that BRP has, rightly, not questioned Nobilini’s qualifications as a professional engineer. After all, Nobilini is well-qualified as a mechanical engineer with a concentration in biomechanics.
The Court found BRP correct in its assertion that Nobilini does not refer to any studies that corroborate his view that a person would naturally extend an arm to break a fall specifically during a UTV rollover. Nevertheless, the Court does not view Nobilini’s proposed testimony as his own ipse dixit. Instead, Nobilini based his biomechanical opinion on three studies of the biomechanics of what people typically do when they are falling from a standing position.
Further, Nobilini viewed twenty-six YouTube videos in which the occupants put their arms out in all-terrain vehicle rollovers and a safety video by Polaris Industries, a BRP competitor, in which the Polaris representative confirmed that “[s]ometimes the natural response is to put your hand out, like you’re falling.” Nobilini also reviewed after-market products, including arm and wrist restraints, designed to restrain users of such vehicles from extending their arms outside the roll cage in the event of a rollover.
The Court held that Nobilini has presented a reliable basis for his conclusions that Ratcliffe’s rollover accident was analogous to a fall, and, according to academic studies of the biomechanical response to falling, that a person’s natural response is to extend his or her arm to break a fall. Further, based on cumulative evidence, Nobilini articulates a reasonable basis for his opinions that the UTV industry generally was aware of the risk presented by this natural human response, that BRP specifically was aware of this risk, and that the UTV industry had developed safety features to mitigate this risk.
Held
The Court has concluded that Robert Nobilini’s proposed testimony meets the requisite “threshold of reliability,” and therefore it “should be presented to a jury and ‘tested by the adversary process—[by] competing expert testimony and active cross examination.’”
Therefore, the Court dismissed without prejudice Defendant BRP’s motion in limine to exclude the opinions of Robert J. Nobilini.
Key Takeaway:
BRP averred that “at its core, all of Nobilini’s opinions flow from one untested and demonstrably false premise—that belted and restrained vehicle occupants instinctively reach out in rollovers.” BRP pointed out that Nobilini has “never done a scientific study of this question” and asserted that his opinion “runs counter to published literature directly on point.”
However, Nobilini articulates a reasonable basis for his opinions that the UTV industry generally was aware of the risk presented by this natural human response, that BRP specifically was aware of this risk, and that the UTV industry had developed safety features to mitigate this risk.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Ratcliffe v. BRP United States, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv234 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Maine |
| Order Date: | November 05, 2024 |
Leave a Reply