He also opined that the machine’s warning to stay at least ten feet away was confusing and meaningless, and therefore inadequate, because it is necessary for a worker to be near the machine at certain points in the post driving process. 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. Cunitz admittedly is not qualified to render an opinion regarding a design defect as it is outside of his specialty. Cunitz’s report was “generic” and admittedly was not specific to this case. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
|Date Added:||10 February 2009|
|File Size:||27.10 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
GRT Utilicorp, Inc.
Rather, the focus of both attacks is primarily aimed at the reliability of the experts’ methods and principles, and in the case of Dr. He also opined that the machine’s warning to stay at least ten feet away was confusing and meaningless, and therefore inadequate, because it is necessary for a worker to utilicprp near the machine at certain points in the post driving process.
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 a person should not stay within ten feet of the machine while it was in use – was inadequate.
Sections of this page. If the adaptor cap was different and did not conform to DP’s original design, there is a factual issue for the jury concerning whether the adaptor cap on the post driver at the time of the accident was a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the machine.
Because of the high degree of specialized knowledge that I have in the fields discussed above, and the amount of experience I have in evaluating and designing warnings, my assessment of the warnings in this case in light of the well-accepted framework outlined in the article attached is reliable.
We strive to assure doing business with us is hassle-free and sets the standard for quality and performance. He also testified that, in the post driver industry, these caps were fabricated by third parties described as “mom and pop welding shops” on a “frequent basis” as they would wear out from the repetitive impacts. However, this Court recognizes that it is conceivable that the methodology is contained within the report and yet is not apparent.
Cunitz testified that he had a personal medical issue which delayed the production of the supplemental report.
We can save you money and you will like our service! His experience includes the mechanical utillicorp of components for heavy machinery and systems that manufacture heavy machines. A hydraulic arm extends out past the end of the truck and up into the air. Zero Tail Swing Post Driver.
This Court offers no opinion as to the ultimate conclusion he reached as that conclusion is within the province of the finder of fact.
During the extensive repair process, GRT reverse engineered and manufactured two parts for the machine: Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for utilicor; above change. Nothing is this ruling prohibits the defendants from making contemporaneous objections at trial concerning the lack of a factual basis for the opinions of either expert.
Francis v. GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | W.D. La. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
What he did not clearly say, either in his report or his deposition, is how any of the authorities cited in his report, as well as some he “had in his mind” that were not in his report, supported his conclusions. When a post is driven, a 1, lb. Cunitz, this paper set forth “the essential methodology that human factors specialists utilize to analyze warnings,” and he used the criteria from that paper “to analyze the warning systems, or lack thereof, in this case.
However, the report failed to explain how any of these authorities support Long’s conclusions relating to the “narrow” pavement, utilocorp angle, “rough” surface, and “steep” incline of the Hartley Lane crossing. See for example, Rec.
GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | Construction Equipment
The remainder of the evidence was submitted with the briefs of the parties. Cunitz will be permitted to testify to this opinion to the extent it involves where a warning might fit in to that hierarchy, subject to the limitations below. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. A hearing was held at which Dr. However, there was nothing on the machine or in the operator’s manual provided by DP that indicates the critical nature of using only Posf parts to assure the safe operation of the machine.
We will be exhibiting at SPIcon September booth Stop by to see us if you’re attending the show! Cunitz issued six opinions in his initial report.
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. As a result, Dr. Email or Phone Password Forgot account? Singhose, the plaintiffs contend that the post driver was unreasonably 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.