Twigg v. Varsity Brands Holding Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41690 (Middle Dist. of Pa., March 7, 2025) (Brann, J.)
Judge Brann went through Daubert challenges on the Plaintiff’s experts and did not grant most of them.
Discussed foreseeable use and misuse of baseball safety net. Discussed expert reports, Daubert challenges, and only rejected a small part of expert PFRIM in that if the expert may identify appropriate testing protocol for safety products, expected supporting documentation, and communication between defendants on the development of performance specifications. The aspects of his Opinion would allow him to conclude that the net had been undertested to verify it’s design. But he is not allowed to testify that the net at the time of production would not have met the performance specifications used by defendants as that is outside the scope of his opinion. His opinion would allow a jury to infer that defendants did not adequately test the design of a net. The Court also permitted a report of Clark on both warnings, for foreseeable use and misuse, and defectiveness. Asserting the net is defective under the CPSA, is an impermissible legal conclusion. The Court found that a strict liability and design claim may be shown. Causation must still be shown. The consumer expectation test, the Court said that the test, citing Tischer at the test, is that a product is under defective condition if the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer. Therefore, the Court determines that a jury could find overuse of the net by the school. A safety net is within the common experience of ordinary consumers, unlike an automobile. The Court then discussed a versatility standard, manufacturing defect claim, failure to warn claim, negligence claim, negligent design.
