Lacking special expertise, expert could opine on design defect

A metallurgical engineering expert’s lack of specific expertise in firearms did not preclude his testimony that the defendant’s choice of steel caused the plaintiff’s firearm to malfunction because any objections to the expert’s conclusions could be challenged on cross-examination.

Background

On Nov. 11, 2016, plaintiff James R. Putman was hunting in George Washington National Forest with a Savage 10ML-II stainless steel muzzleloader when the firearm’s barrel exploded, severing Putman’s right thumb. The firearm was designed, marketed, and advertised by defendant Savage Arms Inc., a gun manufacturer.

Putman filed this action against Savage Arms alleging negligent design, failure to warn and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. In support of his claims, Putman offers the expert testimony of Dr. Alan Druschitz. Druschitz opines that the choice of steel was improper and caused the 10ML-II to malfunction. Savage Arms seeks to exclude Druschitz’s opinion testimony due to his lack of specific firearms expertise and issues associated with his testing methodology.

Analysis

Druschitz is a qualified metallurgist with advanced degrees in metallurgical engineering and had done specialized research for the purposes of testifying in this matter. He has already been qualified as an expert in metallurgical engineering in federal court. Savage Arms’ objections to his lack of specific firearms expertise may be considered by the trier of fact but do not merit exclusion.

Similarly, Savage Arms’ objection that Druschitz failed to sufficiently test other potential causes of the firearm explosion go to weight of his testimony, rather than admissibility. While a failure to consider other potential causes of a plaintiff’s injury might in some circumstances justify exclusion, under the precedent in this circuit, an expert’s opinion should not be barred simply because the expert failed to rule out every possible alternative cause. Only if the expert utterly fails to consider alternative causes or fails to offer a reason why the proffered alternative cause was not the sole cause should the expert be excluded. That is not the case here.

Finally, the problems Savage Arms lists in its brief regarding Druschitz’s methodology may be pursued during cross examination. They are insufficient to render Druschitz’s testimony unfit under Rule 702.

Motion denied.

Putnam v. Savage Arms Inc., Case No. 7:17-cv-168, March 1, 2019. WDVA at Roanoke (Urbanski). VLW 019-3-091. 5 pp.