Olivia Hernandez and her nephew, Hector Ontiveros, Jr., were working at a pillow manufacturing plant owned and operated by Comfort Revolution Manufacturing of Mississippi, LLC, when Olivia was injured by a “molding pillow carousel” manufactured, sold, and installed by Defendant.
Hector heard a scream while working on the same assembly line as his aunt Olivia’s head was caught in a pinch point at the demolding area after she attempted to remove a pillow that fell from the mold onto the floor. This unfortunately crushed Olivia’s head, but she was eventually removed from the machine. Olivia later succumbed to her injuries at the hospital.
Defendants designated Dr. Steven R. Arndt as an expert in human factors, requesting that he “assist in the investigation and understanding of the human factors issues associated with the subject incident.” Plaintiffs designated Mark R. Cannon “to perform an analysis and evaluation of the causal factors which allowed Hernandez to become entrapped, and critique and evaluate Cannon’s responsibility as the designer and installer of the production line.”
Both parties sought to strike and exclude the other party’s expert witness.
Human Factors Expert Witness
Steven Robert Arndt is a human factors scientist with advanced degrees in industrial engineering- human factors specialization (MSIE and PhD) from the University of Wisconsin. Arndt is a consultant with substantial experience in the investigation and prevention of accidents and injuries related to consumer products, warning labels, instructions, training, industrial and occupational settings, and transportation related systems.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
Mark Russell Cannon has over 25 years’ experience in forensic engineering and investigates a wide variety of mechanical and safety issues, including workplace injuries involving machinery, machinery failures and consumer product failures.
Discussion by the Court
Mark R. Cannon
The Court is of the opinion that Cannon’s testimony and opinions should be excluded because his report relied heavily on an incorrect OSHA standard.
Cannon used the 42-inch guardrail height requirement found in OSHA 1910.29(b)(1) to show “Cannon violated OSHA regulations when they installed the ~34-inch barrier.” He also cited other organizational codes requiring a 42-inch-high railing which have no bearing on the case sub judice.
The Court found that this information was irrelevant for this case’s purposes, and while Cannon did not rely solely on this information, it is foundational to his entire expert report. Plaintiffs argued that Cannon “opined and testified that the standard shows the logic behind a 42-inch height as opposed to the 34-inch height utilized by Cannon USA in its design” and “his opinions were not asserting that the design was unsafe or unreasonably dangerous solely because of an alleged violation or failure to comply with the OSHA standard” These arguments are unconvincing because at several instances, Cannon’s report reads, “[Defendant] violated OSHA regulations.”
Steven R. Arndt
Defendant claimed that Arndt’s opinions were necessary to combat the mischaracterization of safety codes put forth by Plaintiffs’ expert, Cannon, and that his testimony was essential to refute Plaintiffs’ expert’s erroneous interpretation of code and regulatory requirements. While the Court took issue with this characterization of Arndt’s testimony, it would not upset a party’s reason for proffering an expert witness.
Therefore, because Cannon was excluded—along with the testimony Defendants specifically claimed they were using Arndt to combat—the Court struck Arndt’s testimony and opinions regarding any rebuttal against Cannon for the purpose of trial. More specifically, the Court struck the “Rebuttal” section of his expert report and any testimonial reference to it. Additionally, the Court did not permit Arndt to testify to conclusions of law or tell the jury what conclusion it should reach in this matter.
Held
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Steven Arndt.
- The Court granted Defendant’s motion seeking to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert Mark Cannon.
Key Takeaway
An expert may never render “conclusions of law,” opine “on legal issues,” or “tell the jury what result to reach.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Nolazco V. Cannon USA, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv12 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Mississippi Northern |
| Order Date: | March 16, 2026 |
Leave a Reply