SharkNinja manufactured the Ninja Professional Plus Blender, model BL610. Cody Ford received the blender as a gift at her bridal shower in February 2023. The blender was in a box and after opening the box, Ford removed the “top pulp tray” which, according to the design, rests on top of the wrapped pitcher that contains the blade assembly. Thinking she was going to grab the pitcher, Ford then reached into the box where she grabbed the blade assembly instead and “severely lacerated her left pinky finger.”
As a result, Ford sued SharkNinja. In support of her claims, Ford
hired an engineering expert, Mingxi Zheng. SharkNinja filed a motion to exclude Zheng.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Mingxi Zheng is a licensed professional mechanical engineer in California with a specialty in “metallurgy, fracture mechanics, and failure analysis.”
She received degrees in materials science and engineering and has worked as a materials scientist and mechanical engineer at various reputable institutions.
Discussion by the Court
According to Zheng, the blender was defectively designed because it lacked protective covers on a new blade assembly and the warnings included with the blender were insufficient and did not comply with the proper standard for product safety signs and labels.
SharkNinja contended that Zheng’s design defect opinion should be
excluded. The Court agreed.
Zheng concluded that blade guards could have been included without, for example, identifying consumers’ expectations for the packaging of such products, considering the cost of the guards themselves, or accounting for the effects of increasing the time or manpower needed to manufacture and package blenders with blade guards. At most, she offered a cursory comparison to a product that has little in common with the product here beyond that both feature, in substantially different forms, a sharp edge. Zheng did not explain how the scientific method, failure analysis, or root cause analysis methodology helped reach this conclusion.
SharkNinja also contended that Zheng is not qualified to offer expert testimony regarding the adequacy of the warnings. Ford failed to meet her burden to establish Zheng’s qualifications regarding this opinion because Zheng has no expertise in human factors or product warnings.
Held
The Court grant SharkNinja’s motion to exclude Ford’s expert, Mingxi Zheng.
Key Takeaway
Courts often require experience or expertise in “human factors engineering” or product warnings to opine on the adequacy of warnings. Zheng has no expertise in human factors or product warnings.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Ford V. Sharkninja Operating LLC |
| Docket Number: | 8:25cv245 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division |
| Order Date: | June 01, 2026 |
Leave a Reply