Williams v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 21-1442
TRESLAN A. WILLIAMS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Junior Williams,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.; KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD,
Defendants, Appellees,
KAWASAKI MOTORS MANUFACTURING CORP., USA; SPRINGFIELD MOTOR
SPORTS, LLC; KAWASAKI MOTORCYCLES USA, LLC; KAWASAKI HEAVY
INDUSTRIES (USA), INC., d/b/a Kawasaki Motorcycles USA, LLC,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark G. Mastroianni, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Selya, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Terrence L. Butler, with whom John Greenwood and Dodge Law
Firm, Inc. were on brief, for appellant.
Peter M. Durney, with whom Christopher J. Hurst and Cornell
& Gollub were on brief, for appellees.
March 28, 2022
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Treslan Williams, the
personal representative of the estate of Junior Williams, appeals
from the grant of summary judgment to defendants Kawasaki Heavy
Industries, Ltd., the designer and manufacturer of Kawasaki brand
motorcycles, and Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., the United States
distributor of Kawasaki brand motorcycles (collectively,
"Kawasaki"). Williams's suit alleged various Massachusetts-law
claims based on a purported manufacturing defect in a Kawasaki
motorcycle owned and ridden by Junior Williams. Junior Williams
suffered grievous injuries, including burns, when his 2007
Kawasaki ZX-6R motorcycle collided with a Jeep and a fire resulted.
The district court reasoned that the opinions of
Williams's proffered liability expert, Dr. David Rondinone, as to
defect and causation should be excluded under Federal Rule of
Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993). As a result, Williams lacked expert testimony on
these topics, and summary judgment was appropriate.
We affirm on different grounds. Even assuming arguendo
that Dr. Rondinone's testimony was admissible, Williams has not
satisfied his burden of showing that a reasonable jury could find
in his favor by a preponderance of the evidence on the element of
causation.
- 3 -
I.
A. Factual Background
We describe the allegations in the complaint. On July
30, 2013, Junior Williams, while riding his Kawasaki motorcycle,
collided with a Jeep, which was making a U-turn at an intersection
in Springfield, Massachusetts. His motorcycle struck the
passenger-side door of the Jeep and slid under the Jeep. The
motorcycle's fuel tank burst, and a fire ensued. Junior Williams
suffered disfiguring second- and third-degree burns and underwent
over twenty surgeries to treat his burn injuries.
B. Procedural History
On July 26, 2016, Junior Williams filed suit against
Kawasaki in Massachusetts state court; the suit was removed to
federal court based on the diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441. On July 27, 2018, Junior Williams died by suicide.
Treslan Williams thereafter filed an amended complaint
substituting himself as the plaintiff in the action. Williams's
amended complaint asserts claims under strict product liability,
negligence, breach of warranty, wrongful death, and survivorship
causes of action.
C. Dr. David Rondinone's Opinions
On September 29, 2019, Williams disclosed Dr. David
Rondinone as an expert witness, and on September 30, Dr. Rondinone
provided an expert report. Dr. Rondinone's deposition was taken
- 4 -
on November 19, 2019. The district court considered both Dr.
Rondinone's expert report and deposition testimony, as do we.
1. Expert Report
Dr. Rondinone is a mechanical engineer by training and
specializes in failure analysis. He holds a PhD in mechanical
engineering from the University of California, Berkeley and has
taught the senior Mechanics of Materials course in the mechanical
engineering department at Berkeley. He works at Berkeley
Engineering and Research Inc., where he has examined, analyzed,
and tested welded structures and vehicular components.
Dr. Rondinone stated that he examined the 2007 Kawasaki
ZX-6R motorcycle which was involved in the accident. He examined
the right-side frame weld of the motorcycle, which was fractured
along its entire length. He reconstructed a three-dimensional
model of the right-side frame weld. He then concluded that the
frame weld was missing weld material along the length of the inner
surface and lacked fusion at the base.
Dr. Rondinone also examined the left-side frame weld of
the motorcycle: It had a fracture which ran across the weld
material and into the base material on both sides of the weld. He
separately examined exemplar Kawasaki motorcycles from the 2007,
2008, and 2009 model years. Dr. Rondinone's employer obtained the
exemplar motorcycles. The 2007 exemplar motorcycle was the same
make, model, and year of Williams's motorcycle. Dr. Rondinone
- 5 -
removed the frames from the 2008 and 2009 models. He sectioned
and measured the 2008 model's right-side frame weld. He did not
remove the frame from the 2007 model or measure the 2009 model; he
instead visually examined them. He compared the fractured right-
side frame weld from Williams's motorcycle to each of the exemplar
motorcycle frame welds.
Dr. Rondinone determined that during the accident, the
right-side frame weld failed, allowing the frame to puncture the
gas tank, which released the fuel that started the fire. He
further noted that the right-side frame weld on Williams's
motorcycle was (1) smaller and (2) weaker than the corresponding
"weld on an exemplar motorcycle" and the matching left-side frame
weld on William's motorcycle.
Dr. Rondinone summarized his conclusions as: "Mr.
Williams' severe burn injuries were caused by the premature
catastrophic failure of the defective right side frame weld on the
subject motorcycle[.]" He specified:
1) The right-side frame weld on the subject
motorcycle was defective. It lacked material
relative to exemplar welds, and possessed pre-
crack features that further reduced its
strength.
2) The right-side frame weld prematurely
failed. This failure allowed the frame to
intrude into the volume occupied by the fuel
tank. This intrusion fractured the tank,
leading to the release of fuel and injuries to
Mr. Williams. Had the frame weld not failed,
- 6 -
the tank would not have fractured and released
fuel.
3) A competent risk assessment (e.g. Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis – FMEA) in
evaluating the subject weld and the effect on
fuel containment should the weld fail would
have revealed the hazard of tank failure in
the case of frame weld failure. This should
have triggered a further assessment of the
weld quality control or weld design such that
premature weld failure would be mitigated.
2. Deposition Testimony
During his deposition, Dr. Rondinone was asked: "What
proof do you have that the weld on the Williams motorcycle did not
meet specifications for its weld?" He responded that Williams's
motorcycle's right-side frame weld was defective because it had
less weld material than the exemplar weld and the left-side frame
weld on the motorcycle:
So when you look at the subject weld, the one
that failed on the subject motorcycle, it's
clear that that weld does not have the amount
of weld material that is present on the
symmetric opposite side weld on the subject
frame. It does not have as much material as
the exemplar weld at the same location or the
exemplar weld at the symmetric location.
In response to a question as to whether he had
"reconstructed the accident," Dr. Rondinone admitted that he
"h[adn't] been asked to," and in response to a question as to
whether he knew what "the speeds were at [different] point[s]"
during the accident, he admitted he did not. Dr. Rondinone
conceded during deposition that he could not opine on whether the
- 7 -
forces during the accident would have fractured a proper, non-
defective frame weld:
Q All right. And are you ruling out also
that at the moment of impact with the
automobile, some significant forces were
experienced by the entire front end of that
motorcycle that would have fractured even a
proper weld?
A That I'm not ruling out.
Q Okay. But you don't -- you haven't done
any analysis on that, have you?
A That's true. I have not done the
reconstruction; that's true.
Q All right. So you don't -- you can't tell
me whether the forces were high enough that
they would have fractured the best weld in the
world?
A That I can't say, but I can say that the
weld that did fail on the right side failed in
a manner that demonstrates that the weld
itself is inferior because a properly made
weld will -- should fracture through the base
material, as well as the weld material, and we
see that exact same type of failure on the
left side of the frame, and so although I can't
say whether the forces would have been enough
to break a proper weld, I can say that the
subject weld was clearly improper and
substandard simply by the method in which it
failed.
Later in the deposition, Dr. Rondinone again confirmed
that he could not offer an opinion on whether the forces in the
accident would have fractured a proper frame weld:
Q You told me earlier in this deposition
that you can't come to an opinion as to at
what force a proper weld would fracture at
that location on this frame; right?
A I have not done that calculation.
Q Okay. So you don't -- you -- and we also
agreed that you can't tell me whether the
forces seen by the weld in this accident
- 8 -
exceeded the forces necessary to fracture a
proper weld; right?
A That's still true.
II.
Kawasaki moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia,
that Dr. Rondinone's expert opinions were inadmissible. Kawasaki
separately filed a motion to exclude Dr. Rondinone's opinions. On
July 14, 2020, the district court held a hearing on Kawasaki's
motion for summary judgment. During the hearing, both parties
agreed that there was no need for a separate Daubert evidentiary
hearing. 509 U.S. 579.
On May 18, 2021, the district court granted Kawasaki's
motion for summary judgment. The court held that Dr. Rondinone's
expert testimony was inadmissible under Rule 702 because there was
"too large an analytical leap" between the data that Dr. Rondinone
examined and the opinions that he offered. In particular, the
court held that:
[Dr. Rondinone] had no basis for determining
that the welds on the comparison frame
reflected the proper sizing for the frame
welds; that all welds, including those that
did not fail, were subjected to the same
forces in the crash; or that the analogous
weld on the frame of the comparison motorcycle
would not have failed under the circumstances
of the crash.
The court then granted summary judgment for Kawasaki, holding that
without Dr. Rondinone's opinion, Williams could not establish the
existence of a manufacturing defect in the motorcycle or prove
- 9 -
that the alleged defect in the right-side frame weld caused Junior
Williams's injuries.
Williams timely appealed.
III.
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary
judgment. See Forbes v. BB&S Acquisition Corp., 22 F.4th 22, 25
(1st Cir. 2021). "[W]e examine the evidence and all fair
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant and
determine whether the non-movant has offered 'more than a mere
scintilla of evidence,' warranting the submission of the issue to
the jury." Hochen v. Bobst Grp., Inc., 290 F.3d 446, 453 (1st
Cir. 2002) (quoting Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 28 (1st
Cir. 1996)). Under this standard, "we may not consider the
credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, or
evaluate the weight of the evidence." Id. (cleaned up) (quoting
Katz, 87 F.3d at 28). We affirm the district court's grant of
summary judgment "only if, 'applying these standards, the evidence
does not permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of'
appellant[]." Id. (quoting Brennan v. GTE Gov't Sys. Corp., 150
F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 1998)).
B. Analysis
Under Massachusetts law, Williams bears the burden of
proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence for each of
- 10 -
the claims brought here. See Stepakoff v. Kantar, 473 N.E.2d 1131,
1136 (Mass. 1985) (wrongful death); Hayes v. Ariens Co., 462 N.E.2d
273, 278 (Mass. 1984) (breach of warranty), abrogated on other
grounds by Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 696 N.E.2d 909(Mass 1998); Coyne v. John S. Tilley Co., 331 N.E.2d 541, 544-45,
548 (Mass. 1975) (negligence); see also Brown v. Husky Injection
Molding Sys., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 298, 304 n.13 (D. Mass. 2010)
("[T]he crucial issue is often whether the plaintiff's proof
sufficiently establishes that the accident was attributable to a
manufacturing defect as opposed to some other plausible cause --
such as normal wear and tear or the conduct of the user or someone
else." (alteration in original) (quoting D.G. Owen, Manufacturing
Defects, 53 S.C. L. Rev. 851, 859 (2002))). The plaintiff is
required to show "a greater likelihood that his injury was caused
by the defendant's negligence than by some other cause." Coyne,
331 N.E.2d at 547 (quoting Jankelle v. Bishop Indus. Inc., 238
N.E.2d 374, 376 (Mass. 1968)).
In cases where, as here, the nature of the defect and
its causal relationship to the accident are complex, expert
testimony is necessary to establish these elements. See Goffredo
v. Mercedes-Benz Truck Co., 520 N.E.2d 1315, 1318-19 (Mass. 1988);
see also Hochen, 290 F.3d at 451.
Here, Williams's evidence was not sufficient to permit
a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
- 11 -
the alleged manufacturing defect in the right-side frame weld
caused Junior Williams's injuries.
Dr. Rondinone was Williams's sole expert witness on
liability, and he did not offer an opinion that the alleged defect
in the right-side frame weld caused the weld to fail when it
otherwise would not have. Indeed, Dr. Rondinone conceded during
his deposition that he had not "done any analysis" to determine
whether "some significant forces were experienced by the entire
front end of that motorcycle that would have fractured even a
proper weld," and he stated that he "c[ouldn't] say whether the
forces [during the impact] would have been enough to break a proper
weld." At deposition, he also admitted that he "c[ouldn't]
tell . . . whether the forces seen by the weld in this accident
exceeded the forces necessary to fracture a proper weld." It is
possible to glean from Dr. Rondinone's testimony the seeds of a
more nuanced theory of causation. While Rondinone conceded that
he did not know if a proper right-side weld "would have fractured,"
he also stated that a proper weld -- if it fractured -- would have
fractured in a different direction: "through the base material."
Williams, though, did not advance below and does not advance on
appeal this more precise reading of Dr. Rondinone's testimony.
More importantly, Dr. Rondinone never closed the causal loop by
opining that, had the right-side weld fractured through the base
material, the fire would most likely not have occurred.
- 12 -
Without any expert testimony on the complex question of
causation presented by this case, Williams has not shown that there
is "'more than a mere scintilla of evidence,' warranting the
submission of the issue to the jury." Hochen, 290 F.3d at 453(quoting Katz, 87 F.3d at 28); see Goffredo, 520 N.E.2d at 1318
("[T]his was not a case in which the jury could have found, of its
own knowledge, that the defendant had improperly designed the latch
mechanism.").
Williams argues that he can show causation because
"[t]here is no question that the subject weld on the motorcycle
failed, puncturing the fuel tank resulting in a fire that injured
Junior Williams." Even assuming arguendo that this conclusion is
well-supported by the record and Dr. Rondinone's testimony,
Williams's argument misses the relevant causation question. The
causation question in this case is not whether the right-side frame
weld's failure caused Junior Williams's injuries; rather, the
relevant question is whether the alleged manufacturing defect to
the right-side frame weld caused the injuries. Dr. Rondinone
admitted that he could not offer an opinion on whether a properly
manufactured weld would have failed in this accident. His
testimony failed to establish the necessary causal link between
the manufacturing defect and Junior Williams's injuries.
Williams further argues that Kawasaki did not
reconstruct the accident or perform any tests and "has no basis
- 13 -
for suggesting that the forces from the impact would have failed
every weld at the subject location of the motorcycle." Williams's
argument fails because it misstates the relevant burden of proof.
It is the plaintiff that bears the burden of proving causation by
a preponderance of the evidence. See Goffredo, 520 N.E.2d at 1318;
Coyne, 331 N.E.2d at 544.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the entry of
summary judgment for defendants.
- 14 -