King v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.

Filing

OPINION issued by David J. Barron, Appellate Judge; Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge and Norman H. Stahl, Appellate Judge. Published. [14-2036]

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-2036
JOSEPH T. KING, Administrator for the Estate of Gertrude King,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Barron, Selya, and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.

David E. Cunningham, with whom Burke & Foskett, LLC was on
brief, for appellant.
Anthony J. Colucci, III, with whom Marybeth Priore and Colucci
& Gallaher, P.C. were on brief, for appellee.

May 4, 2015

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 2

STAHL, Circuit Judge.

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph T.

King, as the administrator for the Estate of Gertrude King, appeals
from an order granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. ("Pierce") on claims that the allegedly
defective fire truck it manufactured was responsible for the
decedent's death.
Gertrude King ("Gertrude") was standing on the median of
a Cambridge, Massachusetts road in January, 2010, when the nozzle
of a loose hose on a passing fire truck forcefully struck her.

She

was rushed to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery, but
died two days later as a result of her injuries.
The hose that hit Gertrude belonged to a Cambridge Fire
Department ("CFD") truck manufactured by Pierce.

Pierce builds

custom trucks for fire departments throughout the United States.
Each apparatus is built according to the specifications of the
particular fire department, which may choose from the hundreds of
thousands of features that Pierce offers, or request special
components.

Consequently,

it

is

up

to

the

individual

fire

department to design its trucks, including the hose storage area —
its length and width, the specifications of the hose bed covers and
hose capacity, and the materials used.
Pierce manufactured the fire truck at issue in 2002.

In

conformance with the CFD's specifications, the truck was built with
two "crosslay" hose beds — used for storing the 200-foot hose — one

-2-

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

with 1.5-inch outlets and one with a 2.5-inch outlet.

Crosslay

covers were installed over each hose bed for the purpose of
securing the hose and protecting it from the weather.

Because the

CFD's specifications did not call for it, Pierce did not install a
supplemental hose restraint in addition to the crosslay cover,
although such a feature was available.1
Joseph
administrator

of

T.

King

her

("King"),

estate,

nephew

filed

suit

of

Gertrude

against

Pierce

and
in

Massachusetts state court; Pierce removed to federal district
court.

King's complaint alleged breach of warranty, negligent

design, and wrongful death.

Pierce thereafter retained an expert,

Dr. Dennis Guenther, a professor of mechanical engineering at The
Ohio

State

University

and

a

project

engineer

at

a

forensic

engineering firm. After performing an accident and design analysis
of the fire truck in question, Dr. Guenther prepared a report
concluding

that

the

truck

was

not

defective

or

unreasonably

dangerous.

He opined that the truck was "of good overall design"

and that there was no evidence that Pierce had engaged in wanton
conduct or had disregarded public safety. Rather, according to Dr.

1

At the time of the manufacture of the fire truck in question
in 2002, per National Fire Protection Association Standard 1901,
fire trucks were not required to be equipped with redundant hose
restraints. However, in 2005 — after the truck's manufacture but
prior to the accident at issue — Standard 1901 was amended to
require that all fire trucks manufactured after November 15, 2005
be equipped with hose restraints.
-3-

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 4

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Guenther, the improper stowing of the hose in the hose beds had
caused the accident.
Because King failed to disclose any experts by the
district court's deadline, Pierce moved to preclude King from
offering any expert testimony at trial.

After the district court

granted the motion, Pierce followed up with a motion for summary
judgment.

Pierce argued, inter alia, that it was entitled to

judgment on King's negligent design and breach of warranty claims,
which could not be proven in the absence of expert testimony.

The

district court agreed and entered summary judgment for Pierce,
ruling that expert testimony was necessary to King's case and that
without it the jury would not be able to rely on common knowledge
to determine the cause of the accident.2
On

appeal,

King

challenges

the

district

court's

determination that his claims required presentation of expert
testimony.

He

argues

that

jurors

could

find,

based

on

lay

knowledge, that the absence of hose restraints in a fire truck
constituted

a

design

defect

that

exposed

pedestrians

to

an

unreasonable risk of injury.
In a diversity action such as this one, "whether expert
testimony is required is a matter of state law."

2

Beaudette v.

The district court further held that King's "argument also
founder[ed] on the issues of foreseeability and intervening cause,"
King v. Pierce Mfg., Inc., No. 13-10150-RGS, 2014 WL 4351599, at *4
(D. Mass. Sept. 2, 2014), matters that we need not address in this
opinion, as we rule solely on the basis of expert testimony.
-4-

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 5

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Louisville Ladder, Inc., 462 F.3d 22, 27 (1st Cir. 2006).

Under

Massachusetts law, both negligent design and breach of warranty
claims

require

dangerous

proof

condition

defendant's control.

of
that

a

design

existed

defect
when

the

or

an

unreasonably

product

left

the

See Enrich v. Windmere Corp., 416 Mass. 83,

87–89 (1993). The presence of a defect, in turn, typically "cannot
be inferred in the absence of expert testimony."

Id. at 87.

Such

testimony is required in complex product liability cases in order
to mitigate against jury "conjecture and surmise" regarding the
cause of the injuries at issue and the relevant standard of care.
Triangle Dress, Inc. v. Bay State Serv., Inc., 356 Mass. 440, 441
(1969); see also Hochen v. Bobst Grp., Inc., 290 F.3d 446, 451 (1st
Cir. 2002) (applying Massachusetts law).
This case falls squarely within the ambit of the experttestimony rule.

While a fire truck is certainly a common sight on

city streets, lay knowledge does not extend to the design of the
vehicle's hose bed and the relative propriety of different types of
hose restraints.

As the Massachusetts Appeals Court has observed

in relation to an escalator, "[b]y its nature, [a fire truck] is a
complex, technical piece of machinery, whose design and operational
requirements

are

not

straightforward.

Accordingly,

any

determination of the dimensions essential to its safe operation is
generally beyond the scope of an average person's knowledge."

-5-

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 6

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Esturban v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 911–12
(2007) (collecting cases).
Unlike in cases involving defects so obvious as to not
require expert testimony, jurors here cannot be expected to intuit
that a hose stored in a bed equipped with crosslay covers but not
redundant hose restraints would be likely to come loose in a manner
that threatens pedestrian safety.

"Without the aid of an expert

in the field, jurors would also be left to speculate about whether
alternatively
accident."
625

(1978)

engineered

Id. at 912.
("It

is

designs

might

have

prevented

the

Contra Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620,

within

the

knowledge

of

a

jury

whether

unshielded metal protrusion on the handle bar of a snowmobile
constitute a defect in design which creates an unreasonable risk of
harm."); Hayes v. Hobart Corp., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 889, 889 (1979)
("It was open to the jury to find on their own examination of the
food chopper and photographs thereof that the defendant had been
negligent in designing a machine which readily permitted the user's
fingers to reach the cutting blades.").

Furthermore, where the

manufacturer offered various hose-restraint options but the fire
department chose not to order them, an average juror would not know
who bore responsibility for ensuring that trucks were equipped with
adequate restraints.

-6-

Case: 14-2036

Document: 00116831790

Page: 7

Date Filed: 05/04/2015

Entry ID: 5904876

Given King's obligation to provide expert testimony to
support his claim and his failure to offer any before the deadline,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-7-