King v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
King v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
King v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
Before
Barron, Selya, and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
May 4, 2015
Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph T.
She
Pierce builds
Consequently,
it
is
up
to
the
individual
fire
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-
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
State
University
and
project
engineer
at
forensic
that
the
truck
was
not
defective
or
unreasonably
dangerous.
and that there was no evidence that Pierce had engaged in wanton
conduct or had disregarded public safety. Rather, according to Dr.
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.
The
appeal,
King
challenges
the
district
court's
He
argues
that
jurors
could
find,
based
on
lay
design
defect
that
exposed
pedestrians
to
an
Beaudette v.
Under
require
dangerous
proof
condition
defendant's control.
of
that
design
existed
defect
when
the
or
an
unreasonably
product
left
the
Id. at 87.
Such
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.
are
not
straightforward.
Accordingly,
any
-5-
Esturban v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 91112
(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.
(1978)
engineered
Id. at 912.
("It
is
designs
might
have
prevented
the
within
the
knowledge
of
jury
whether
-6-
-7-