May 28, 2020 By:

The Court notes that “[t]he adequacy of a warning is a factual issue which the jury can handle without expert help from either side. Contact Us We want to hear from you! To establish reliability under Daubert, an expert bears the burden of furnishing “some objective, independent validation of [his] methodology. Our service facility also has the capability to repair, rebuild, or service all makes of pressure diggers and post drivers. Singhose testified regarding the engineering principles he followed to arrive at his conclusion and provided the support for those principles from other texts.

Uploader: Digore
Date Added: 6 March 2013
File Size: 59.62 Mb
Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads: 39980
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

He has authored engineering textbooks and technical papers on mechanical engineering and design. In his supplemental report which was issued after the reports and depositions of the defendants’ experts, Dr.

Stop hrt and see us! Log In Utolicorp UK. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. Cunitz, the plaintiffs also contend that the post driver was unreasonably dangerous because there was no warning that a beam could be ejected from the machine; because there was no warning that the adaptor cap and foot adaptor, which are critical safety features, should have been replaced only with parts manufactured by DP, the original equipment manufacturer; and because the warning that was given – cautioning that gry person should not stay within ten feet of the machine while it was in use – was utiilcorp.

Keep us in mind when you are in need of a driving or digging machine, new or used parts to repair your machines, or augers and teeth. Cunitz opined that there should have been a warning that only OEM parts were to be used if a part of the post driver needed to be replaced and the failure to replace that part with an OEM part would compromise a critical safety function of the machine.


With regard to the hierarchy of safety techniques opinion twoDr. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you!

Just a reminder to stop by our booth Solar Power Utilidorp spicon today tomorrow and Thursday and check out our MD solar post driver utllicorp with everything else we offer for your post installation needs! This machine is for sale! Cunitz concludes that none of the warnings and labels on the machinery addressed the hazard that ultimately occurred, the post being ejected, nor did any warnings or labels provide any instruction necessary to avoid injury even though they could have and should have.

See for example, Rec. With regard to any potential expert witness, “[b]efore certifying an expert and admitting his testimony, a district court must ensure that the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence have been met. In utilivorp recent decision of Brown v.

GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | Manufacturers

The fourth and sixth opinions deal with the warnings in this case and the superior positions of knowledge held by manufacturers over end users regarding the hazard of a product which would necessitate warnings.

This Court offers no opinion as to the ultimate conclusion he reached as that conclusion is within the province of the finder of fact.

Our service department repairs and rebuilds Sterling machines as well as all makes of pressure diggers and drivers. Work Zone was succeeded by United Rentals. To accomplish this task, Highway Technologies used a truck-mounted post driver to set and remove the vertical I-beams to which the horizontal guardrails are then mounted. Singhose, the plaintiffs contend that the post driver was utllicorp dangerous in design because it lacked a chain or bar to act as a redundant safety device to prevent an I-beam from being ejected from the machine.

Key Phrases are not available yet. He did not conduct that analysis since he felt he had found an acceptable solution and he did not feel this type of catastrophic event could be adequately warned against given the design of the post driver based on the engineering literature.


The Court specifically does not exclude the option to find that the members of the jury will be able to make these factual determinations on their own without expert assistance depending upon the facts adduced at trial. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, the Court will not exclude the opinions contained in the supplemental report on this basis. A machine developed with no overhang on the non-working side of the machine in order to drive posts where space is tight or lane closures are difficult.

Our Services

The characteristic of a product that renders it unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect or inadequate warning must exist at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result posh a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.

Zero Tail Swing Post Driver. Cunitz stated in his initial report: Cunitz’s anticipated testimony may not be required to assist the jury in determining whether a warning should itilicorp should not have been provided with regard to the danger of post ejection or the need for using OEM replacement parts on the post driver.

Cunitz will be permitted to testify to this opinion to the extent frt involves where a warning might fit in to that hierarchy, subject to the limitations below. Cunitz will not be permitted to testify at the trial of this matter as to some of his opinions as set forth herein. More specifically, utilizing the opinion of Dr. GRT Utilicorp is on display in booth