Kansas: Plaintiffs granted new trial due to court’s ruling on the inclusion of expert witnesses

Link for opinion: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/950/950.F2d.643.88-1596.html


In Werth v. Makita Electric Works LTD, 950 F.2d 643, (KS 1991), the United States District Court of the District of Kansas erred in not allowing the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses.

The United States District Court of the District of Kansas reversed the original court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trail due to the error of the trial judge’s exclusion of the expert testimony of two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.

The plaintiff’s Gilbert and Kathleen Werth filed a suit on behalf of their minor son, Chris, who had his fingers severed due to the malfunction of the defendants Makita Electric Works 7 ¼ inch circular saw while cutting a piece wood paneling. Chris has experience in the use of power tools including circular saws having used them at school and on the farm without any problems.

The complaint against Makita alleges three different counts however the plaintiffs elected to proceed with one count claiming the circular saw was defective in that the equipment was not equipped with either a blade brake or riving knife and the instruction manual contained in adequate warnings and instructions.

Makita sought to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness asserting he was not qualified under Fed.R.Evid.702 to testify on the proper design, function or operation of circular saws, blade brakes or riving knives. Plaintiff’s counsel said the accident was the result of the kickback of the saw that was caused by the wood binding of the wood on the rotating blade which forced the saw blade up out of the kurf (the cut made by the saw in the wood).

Makita’s counsel claimed that the incident happened at a result Chris’ carelessness in putting his hand under the paneling where it was exposed to the saw blade. Their claim is based on the fact that Chris’ cut was on the palm side. Because Chris could not recall exactly how his hand made contact with the saw blade, he conceded that it was possible that he placed his hand under the wood when steadying it.

As a result of the two expert witnesses not being able to testify, the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was not granted. However the standards governing admission of the evidence, the admission of expert testimony is guided in federal court by the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. In Rule 702 is states “if specific, technical, or toehr specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Rule 703 states “the facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonable relied upon by experts in the [articular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or date need not be admissible in evidence.”

As a result of Rules 702, 703 and 704 the expert witnesses were allowed to testify and a judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trail.