Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Materials Science Expert Witness

  • Materials Science Expert Witness Barred From Opining on the Ladder’s Failure

    Materials Science Expert Witness Barred From Opining on the Ladder’s Failure

    On October 1, 2021, Tate Parker purchased a Tricam Industries, Inc. Gorilla articulated extension ladder (Model GLMPXA-14) from Home Depot in Opelika, Alabama. On February 14, 2022, Parker was injured while using his Tricam ladder to access a residential roof for an insurance-related inspection. At the time of the accident at issue, his job duties included inspecting residential roofs that had endured storm damage.

    Parker filed suit against Tricam on January 22, 2024, claiming the ladder was defectively manufactured and designed.

    Parker identified an expert witness, Barton C. Prorok, Ph.D., to speak to the issue of the cause of the ladder collapse. Prorok opined that the ladder collapsed because one of the upper side rails was twisted, which allowed a rail lock rod to slip out of the locking hole and the ladder to retract with Parker on it.

    Tricam filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Prorok, attacking his qualifications given his lack of experience in the ladder industry and attacking his methodology which Tricam argued was unreliable, unscientific, and unhelpful.

    Materials Science Expert Witness

    Barton C. Prorok, Ph.D., is a materials engineer, metallurgist, and chair of the
    materials science and engineering department at Auburn University.

    He holds a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago. At Auburn University, he also serves as Director of the Analytical Microscopy Cost Center.

    Want to know more about the challenges Barton Prorok has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Prorok’s opinions stem, first, from his observation that one of the rails on the subject ladder was twisted upon post-accident inspection. From there, he posits there was a defect in the manufacturing process that caused an upper rail to twist and become distorted. He also believes there is a design defect in the length of the rail lock rods that allowed the rail lock rods to disengage because of the single twisted rail. The combination of the two defects, according to Prorok, caused both upper rails to slip, the upper ladder portion to retract, and the ladder to collapse and fall to the ground.

    To begin with, Prorok visually inspected the subject ladder, took measurements, purchased an exemplar ladder for comparison, inspected the site of the accident, and considered eye-witness accounts from Parker and the son of the homeowner.

    Analysis

    The Court held that Prorok provided no evidence that ladder manufacturers rely on visual inspections or caliper measurements to assess ladder defects. He did not explain how his measurements led to a scientifically reliable methodology. He never conducted tests to determine whether those measurements constituted a defect or unreasonable danger, or caused the ladder collapse. Further, Prorok provided no insight or information supporting his opinion that there was a manufacturing defect that caused the collapse.

    Moreocer, he provided no information or opinions about why that twisting could not have occurred for other common sense reasons such as during the ladder’s transit from China to the United States before sale, or during Parker’s storage, and use of the ladder for months on over 100 occasions, or because of the accident itself.

    And as to the design defect, Prorok opined that the length of the rail lock rods “is a design flaw that reduces load-carrying capacity, especially when manufacturing variations or normal wear and tear occur.” However, he did not explain what those “manufacturing variations” may be, or what impacts to the ladder there may be from “normal wear and tear.”

    As for Prorok’s opinions that the twisting was caused during the metal deformation stage of the manufacturing process, the Court found no evidence about the metal deformation process.

    Nor is there any evidence explaining how the upper part of the ladder, post-accident, was observed to be in the fully extended position while the bottom portion was fully retracted if the accident occurred in the manner that Prorok claims it did.

    Held

    The Court granted Tricam’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Barton Prorok.

    Key Takeaway:

    Prorok did not produce any literature, reports, or other documentation to support his contention that the accident occurred in the manner that he claims it did. And he tested none of his opinions. Indeed, he performed no testing to duplicate the conditions or manner in which he claims the collapse occurred.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Parker Et Al V. Tricam Industries, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:24cv79
    Court Name: United States District Court, Alabama Middle
    Order Date: May 1, 2025
  • Materials Science Expert’s Supplemental Report Excluded Despite a Compelling Explanation for the Tardiness

    Materials Science Expert’s Supplemental Report Excluded Despite a Compelling Explanation for the Tardiness

    This is an insurance coverage dispute. Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (“Church Mutual”) insured Plaintiffs’ property. Hail damaged the property’s roof. The parties dispute whether the damage falls within Plaintiffs’ insurance policy, which precludes coverage for cosmetic damage.

    Plaintiffs sought to exclude the expert testimony of Christine Conner, Mark Kubena, and Ronald Dutton on the grounds that they applied an extracontractual definition of “functional damage,” which, according to Plaintiffs, made their opinions unreliable and irrelevant. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to exclude Dutton’s supplemental expert report.

    Forensic Engineering Expert Witness

    Christine E. Conner has 10 years of engineering experience, including design, evaluation, inspection, and repair of residential and commercial buildings and other structures, with over 5 years of engineering training and forensic engineering experience in cause and origin failure analysis for structural damage; structural failures, construction deficiencies, roof damage, wind/hail damage, water intrusion, settlement, flooring failures, construction deficiencies, cladding and window failures, foundation damage, flood, surge and wind damage analysis, and preparation of technical reports with findings.

    Get the full story on challenges to Christine Conner’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Civil Engineering Expert Witness

    Mark Kubena is an engineer with expertise in the area of property damage causation and the determination of the appropriate scope of repairs for property damage.

    Want to know more about the challenges Mark Kubena has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Materials Science Expert Witness

    Ronald J. Dutton has over 40 years of metallic-coated steel experience with which he provides technical services for product development, failure analysis, and product training for the metal construction industry. He has served in various trade organizations, including the National Coil Coating Association (NCCA) and the Zinc Aluminum Coaters Association (ZAC), and holds BS and MS degrees from Drexel University and Lehigh University.

    Discover more cases with Ronald Dutton as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. The Expert Reports Are Relevant and Reliable

    The Court found that Conner, Dutton, and Kubena’s expert reports do not rely on extracontractual definitions of functional and cosmetic damage. They instead explained how the roof lacked certain types of functional damage. Thus, the expert reports opined that the roof had not been functionally damaged because its service life had not been reduced.

    Basically, Church Mutual’s expert reports would help the jury determine whether the policy limitation applies. And they do not confuse the trier of fact by applying a different definition of functional/cosmetic damages. The Court declared these reports admissible.

    B. Dutton’s Supplemental Report Is Inadmissible

    Dutton’s supplemental disclosure is a three-page summary of a laboratory report that evaluated the hail damage to the Plaintiffs’ roof. Dutton stated that the lab report supports the conclusions from his original report and demonstrates that there is no evidence that the hail diminished the performance of the roof.

    The Court found that Dutton’s report is not supplemental because it goes beyond filling the “interstices of an incomplete report” and instead introduces new laboratory testing results and new opinions.

    Church Mutual offered a compelling explanation for the tardiness. Dutton did not receive the lab results until after submitting his initial expert report. Moreover, the testimony was important because it provided lab results that helped explain why the roof damage is cosmetic instead of functional.

    Even though there is a compelling reason for the delay and the testimony is important, the Court will not admit it because Plaintiffs did not have time to produce rebuttal reports after Dutton disclosed the samples used in his supplemental report one week before the discovery deadline.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion.

    Key Takeaways:

    • None of the experts relied on an extracontractual definition of cosmetic or functional damage to reach their conclusions.
    • Even though Dutton states that his supplemental findings support his original conclusions, they still offer new opinions, because they analyze new laboratory test results.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Cleburne Training & Fitness Inc Et Al V. Church Mutual Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 3:24cv410
    Court Name: United States District Court, Texas Northern
    Order Date: April 10, 2025
  • Ninja’s Silent Danger: Court Admits Expert’s Warning Claim

    Ninja’s Silent Danger: Court Admits Expert’s Warning Claim

    Allyson Bolden sued SharkNinja after sustaining injuries while using their Intellisense Kitchen System food processor. Bolden claimed a design defect led to the lid jamming, resulting in her injury when trying to remove it. Defendant SharkNinja challenged the admissibility of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Wade Lanning‘s, testimony, arguing his qualifications, reliability, and relevance were lacking.

    Lanning, a materials scientist and safety engineer, conducted a thorough analysis of the food processor. His key findings included:  

    • Design Flaw: The lid could be attached in a misaligned manner, locking into place without engaging the safety mechanism, leading to jamming.
    • Jamming Mechanism: Testing revealed the lid could jam due to this misalignment, consistent with Bolden’s experience. Scratches on Bolden’s bowl supported this conclusion.
    • Lack of Warnings: The product manual lacked warnings about lid jamming.
    • Ineffective Engineering Controls: The flexible bowl and shallow lug/notch design failed to prevent misalignment.
    • Alternative Designs: Lanning suggested safer alternatives, like a square lid or twist-to-lock mechanism, already used in other products.
    • Causation: He concluded the jammed lid, lack of warnings, and inadequate safeguards proximately caused Bolden’s injuries.

    Materials Science Expert Witness

    Wade Lanning is a forensic investigator who uses his expertise in materials science and engineering to determine how and why a failure or accident occurred. Lanning is also a safety engineer and analyzes how product design, manufacturing, instructions and warnings, and consumer behavior relate to an accident. Lanning investigates incidents of any scope, from minor property damage to major accidents involving loss of life. He also works as a consultant in material processing, failure analysis, and risk management, and conducts research in forensic investigation and accident prevention.

    Get the full story on challenges to Wade Lanning’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualifications

    SharkNinja argued Lanning, a materials scientist, was unqualified to opine on warnings.

    The Court found Lanning’s experience in safety engineering and assessing warnings in consumer products, including food processing machinery, sufficient. Lack of specialization impacts weight, not admissibility.

    Reliability

    SharkNinja claimed Lanning’s force testing was inadequate and his opinions on alternative designs and causation were unreliable.

    Force Testing of Jamming

    Sharkninja claimed he did not test the force required to assemble the lid in a jamming fashion. The Court found that this was incorrect, and that Lanning had indeed performed force testing. Sharkninja then tried to change their argument, which the Court deemed waived. The Court also stated that even if the argument was not waived, that Lanning’s testing was sufficient.

    Force Testing of Lid Removal

    Sharkninja claimed that Lanning should have tested the force required to remove a jammed lid. The Court determined that his testing on the force of jamming, and the analysis of the damaged food processor was sufficient.

    Alternative Designs

    The Court deemed that testing of alternative designs was not always required, especially when certain of the alternative designs already exist in the industry. Moreover, the alternative designs are not complex.

    Warning Opinions

    Plaintiff did not allege that Bolden was injured because she did not know how to remove the lid under ordinary circumstances but instead that she was unable to remove the lid normally due to the jam which stopped the handle from raising fully and that no warnings were provided regarding risks associated with the lid jamming. 

    The Court ruled that Lanning’s warning opinions were not contrary to the record, as claimed by the Defendant.

    Relevance

    SharkNinja argued Lanning’s causation opinion was irrelevant as his test didn’t perfectly replicate Bolden’s experience.

    The Court found Lanning’s test replicated the core of Bolden’s experience: the lid not releasing fully through the use of the release button, requiring removal of the lid through other means.

    Held

    The Court held that Wade Lanning is qualified, has employed a reliable methodology, and his opinions are relevant, and accordingly denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Lanning.

    Key Takeaways:

    The Court emphasized that:

    1. Daubert doesn’t require specific credentials; relevant expertise is sufficient.

    2. Reliability can be established through scientific methods or professional experience.

    3. Lack of specialization impacts weight, not admissibility.

    4. Testing is one measure of reliability, but not always required.

    5. Imperfect testing is a matter for cross examination.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Haigler V. Sharkninja Operating LLC
    Docket Number: 1:23cv326
    Court: United States District Court, Illinois Northern
    Order Date: March 3, 2025
  • Appliances Expert Witness’ Testimony Fails to Establish the Manufacturing Defect Claim

    Appliances Expert Witness’ Testimony Fails to Establish the Manufacturing Defect Claim

    Roger and Reuki Schutt (the “Schutts”) are the owners of a house located at Canton, Massachusetts. On April 24, 2019, the house sustained water damage resulting in the payment of insurance benefits by Safety to the Schutts. The water damage was determined to have originated from a leak in a water filter system manufactured and sold by EcoWater under the tradename Northstar.

    On October 23, 2019, the filter system was examined at a joint inspection by experts for both EcoWater and Safety. The sump was observed to have a “throughwall crack extending the entire length of the housing,” as well as “additional cracks.” EcoWater did not use annealing in the production process for its clear sumps. Post-mold annealing is the process of cooling a mold-injected polymer after manufacture.

    On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Safety Insurance Company (“Safety”) filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court against Defendant EcoWater Systems, LLC (“EcoWater”), asserting its right of subrogation arising from water damage to the property of Roger and Reuki Schutt. 

     Safety disclosed two experts in support of its case: (1) “appliance failure inspector” expert Thomas Zarek and (2) materials science expert Timothy Kenney. 

    Zarek opined that the product failed prematurely at the loss location and caused the water damage while Kenney concluded that it was common practice to post-mold anneal these thick wall parts to reduce these residual stresses and improve the performance of the part.

    EcoWater filed motions in limine to exclude the opinions and testimony of Thomas Zarek and Timothy Kenney under Rule 702.

    Appliances Expert Witness

    Thomas Zarek has been employed as an appliance failure inspector since 1997. Regarding his areas of expertise, Zarek holds himself out as a warnings expert, a certified fire and explosion investigator, a certified vehicle fire investigator, and a licensed oil heating inspector and installer. Also, he has taken “a number of courses on appliance failure analysis and on HVAC systems installation,” covering a variety of appliances and materials, including polymers and metals.

    Discover more cases with Thomas Zarek as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Materials Science Expert Witness

    Timothy Kenney’s qualifications and experience include a degree in geology, undergraduate engineering courses in materials science, graduate courses in metallurgy, ceramics, and selection of steels, and various publications. Besides, he serves as the Laboratory Director of New Hampshire Materials Laboratory.

    NHML provides consulting and technical services in chemical, materials, mechanical design, and industrial processing.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Timothy Kenney’s expert testimony. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Thomas Zarek

    To begin with, Safety’s complaint claimed negligence and breach of warranty based solely on defective manufacture of the filter system. Therefore, the Court held that Zarek’s opinions as they relate to other theories of negligence, such as failure to reasonably warn or defective design, are irrelevant since any expert testimony must therefore be limited to establishing the manufacturing defect claim.

    Zarek testified that his conclusions regarding the filter system’s allegedly premature failure are based, at least in part, on his review of EcoWater’s Test ID 4499, which tested canisters similar to the subject sump through a cycle test and hydrostatic test. Yet, the Court found that Zarek himself admitted that he has never performed a cycle test himself for any kind of product and that he does not know what cycle testing is intended to evaluate. As for the hydrostatic testing, Zarek likewise testified that he has never conducted a hydrostatic test on a polymer product or on the styrene acrylonitrile (“SAN”) material used in the subject product, and that the purpose of a hydrostatic test is not to test to failure.

    The Court held that Zarek’s lack of relevant experience and knowledge pertaining to the claims alleged makes clear that he is not qualified to offer expert testimony here.

    Second, the Court held that Zarek’s opinions reflected little to no expert analysis or review done by Zarek. Several of his proffered opinions merely repeated Kenney’s conclusions, without adding anything more. He stated that he personally did no analysis of the data from the testing performed by Kenney.

    Timothy Kenney

    In opining that post-mold annealing is a “general industry practice,” Kenney exclusively relied on the ASM International Volume 2 of the Engineered Materials Handbook. The Court held that Kenney himself undermined the relevance of this guidance where he testified that there is a difference between thick-section and heavy wall parts, that the subject sump is a thick-section part, and that the ASM handbook only recommends post-mold annealing for heavy-wall parts and not thick-section parts.

    Also, he conceded that he did not conduct any testing to evaluate the effects of post-mold annealing on the product and whether such annealing would have alleviated residual stress, nor has he seen any studies or test reports to that effect.

    Moreover, EcoWater also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the case entirely. The Court held that where Safety has no expert support for its claims—which, again, arise exclusively from allegations of negligent manufacture—Safety’s claims cannot survive summary judgment.

    Held

    To sum it up, the Court granted EcoWater’s motions in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s experts, Thomas Zarek and Timothy Kenney as well as his motion for summary judgment.

    Key Takeaway:

    In conclusion, the Court held that many of Zarek’s opinions reflected little to no expert analysis or review done by Zarek. While Zarek’s opinions were irrelevant to Safety’s claims regarding negligent manufacture of the filter system, Kenney had no basis to opine as to whether post-mold annealing would have prevented the subject product from failing here, after fourteen years of use.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Safety Insurance Company Et Al V. Ecowater Systems, Llc
    Docket Number: 1:22cv10887
    Court: United States District Court, Massachusetts
    Order Date: May 17, 2024