In Jeffrey Klingenberg et al. v. Vulcan Ladder USA LLC et al., Case No. 18- 1742 (8th Cir., Aug. 29, 2019), the Eighth Circuit affirmed an Iowa couple’s $2.4 million personal injury jury trial win against Vulcan Ladder and its Chinese manufacturer, ruling that an expert witness’ testimony saying a safer design for the ladder at issue was feasible is enough to back up the award. In 2018, an Iowa federal jury had found that the ladder used by the Klingenbergs was not inherently defective, but rather that it failed to live up to the makers’ promises that it could handle a load of 300 pounds and was manufactured to satisfy Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Therefore, the makers had breached an express warranty, the jury concluded.
Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge William Duane Benton rejected Vulcan’s argument that because both its expert and the plaintiffs’ expert agreed the ladder met American National Standards Institute safety standards, no such breach of warranty could have occurred. The Klingenbergs’ expert, Stephen E. Fournier, was qualified to testify that the ANSI standards were minimum safety standards, and that a product could still be defective despite meeting them, Judge Benton wrote. Fournier’s testimony sufficiently demonstrated that if Vulcan had added retaining straps to the ladder, it would have prevented it from failing and leading to Jeffrey Klingenberg’s injuries, according to the panel
The panel rejected Vulcan’s argument that Fournier’s testimony must be tossed because he never conducted any physical testing of his theories on the damaged ladder or a comparable ladder, noting that the expert’s conclusions were based on a range of relevant information about the ladder and the accident – including his experience with competitors’ ladders.
“Two models of similar ladders from competitors used retaining straps. In a prior case he worked, a competitor’s model with its strap removed failed in the same way as the ladder here,” Judge Benton wrote. “He did not have to conduct a more detailed analysis.”