Crown Equipment
JEFFERSON CITY — The Supreme Court of Missouri has affirmed a circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment to Crown Equipment Corporation after a trial judge excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness in a lawsuit alleging a forklift was defectively designed, ruling that without the expert’s testimony, there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.
In an opinion issued Feb. 24, the court upheld the judgment entered by Jackson Circuit Court in favor of Crown Equipment against plaintiff Christopher Hanshaw.
The high court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Hanshaw’s expert witness and in later granting summary judgment to the company.
The case stems from an Aug. 25, 2016, incident in which Hanshaw was injured while operating a forklift that he alleged was designed, manufactured and distributed by Crown Equipment.
Hanshaw filed a product liability lawsuit claiming the forklift was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous.
His claims centered on the forklift’s open operator compartment design, which he argued contributed to his injuries.
To support his claims, Hanshaw retained an expert witness who was expected to testify that the forklift’s design was defective and that safety could have been improved by adding a door or bumper to the operator compartment.
The expert also intended to offer opinions that the design made the forklift unreasonably dangerous.
On Dec. 19, 2022, Crown Equipment filed motions for summary judgment and to exclude the expert’s testimony.
The company argued the witness was not qualified to offer the opinions presented and that his conclusions were unsupported by reliable methodology.
According to the company, the expert’s deposition testimony amounted to speculation and “inadmissible ipse dixit,” meaning conclusions asserted without supporting evidence.
Crown Equipment also argued that the expert testimony was the only evidence Hanshaw had presented to establish a material factual dispute regarding whether the forklift was defectively designed or whether an alternative design would have prevented the injury.
Without that testimony, the company contended, Hanshaw could not meet his burden of proof and summary judgment was appropriate.
On June 5, 2023, the circuit court agreed and granted the motion to exclude the expert witness.
The court found Hanshaw failed to demonstrate the expert’s opinions were based on reliable research methods.
In particular, the court noted that there was no evidence that the expert conducted any testing to support the proposed alternative designs, including evaluating injury potential, assessing economic feasibility or evaluating overall safety improvements.
The circuit court also found there was no evidence that the expert’s alternative design proposals had been subjected to peer review.
Hanshaw had argued the expert had previously published peer-reviewed papers related to forklift design, but the court determined he failed to show how those publications were relevant to the expert’s opinions in the case or how they supported the conclusions offered in his testimony.
Hanshaw further contended the expert relied on reports maintained by Crown Equipment and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) concerning forklift accidents.
The circuit court found the expert had not adequately explained how he used that data, how it supported his conclusions, or whether the data itself resulted from reliable research methods.
The day after excluding the expert witness, the circuit court granted Crown Equipment’s motion for summary judgment.
Hanshaw appealed, but the Missouri Supreme Court said the only action properly before it was the summary judgment ruling.
The court explained that a decision granting or denying a motion in limine regarding expert testimony is not independently appealable, but the admissibility of the expert’s testimony could still be considered because the summary judgment ruling depended on whether Hanshaw had admissible expert evidence to support his claims.
Missouri law governing expert testimony requires that a witness be qualified and that the testimony be based on sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case.
The Missouri Supreme Court determined the circuit court acted within its discretion when it concluded Hanshaw failed to show the expert’s opinions were supported by reliable methodology.
Because the expert testimony was excluded and Hanshaw had no other evidence establishing a defect in the forklift’s design, the court held there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.
Missouri Supreme Court case number: SC101091
