In Anderson v. The Raymond Corp., No. 22-1872 (7th Cir. February 1, 2023) ( S.D. Ill. Reversed and vacated in part and remanded), the Seventh Circuit determined that the District Court had erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial, where said motion was based on claim that the Judge erred in excluding the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that defendant’s forklift, from which plaintiff fell, was negligently designed because it failed to include as a standard feature a door to enclose operating compartment. The expert, Dr. John Meyer believed that Raymond could have made a number of changes to its design that would have prevented Anderson’s accident. But Meyer’s primary suggestion was that Raymond equip each of its forklifts with a door to enclose the operating compartment, which would prevent operators like Anderson from falling into the forklift’s path. Like other standup forklift manufacturers, Raymond offers doors as an option that some customers choose, but Raymond does not fit doors to its forklifts as standard. Raymond said that it resists fitting doors as standard because a door could impede the operator’s ability to make a quick exit in the event the forklift runs off a loading dock or begins to tip over. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s expert opinion about absence of door was inadmissible because it did not satisfy Rule 702 or satisfy test set forth in Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, and the jury returned a defense verdict. However, the Seventh Circuit instead found that Meyer’s opinion was admissible, where: (1) the expert had extensive training and experience in failure analysis; and (2) the expert’s methodology in visiting accident site and reviewing forklift data was scientifically valid. The mere fact that the expert’s opinion had been rejected in other cases did not require different result.
