Watson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 08-cv-508, 2009 WL 5064316 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 15, 2009) (requiring expert testimony to demonstrate that a vehicle and its restraint system were defective); Honaker v. Innova, Inc., 04-cv-132, 2007 WL 1217744 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that the safety and engineering aspects of pressure cookers are not within the knowledge of an ordinary person); Burton v. Ethicon, Inc., 20-cv-280, 2021 WL 1725514 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2021) (requiring expert proof of design alternatives to a medical transvaginal mesh product).
As explained by a sister court applying Kentucky law, โ[e]xpert testimony is almost always needed to meet the plaintiff's burden in a products liability case.โ Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132(M), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30225, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007). An expert may be required where the question is of a complex and technical nature such that a lay juror could not, without the aid of the expert, infer that a defect caused the plaintiff's injury.
Under Kentucky law, expert witnesses are โgenerally necessaryโ to prove the presence of a defect in a products liability action. Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132(M), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30225, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) (quoting William S. Haynes, Kentucky Jurisprudence: Torts ยงยง 21-28 (1987)). As the Sixth Circuit has explained,
In effect, Kentucky law generally requires a plaintiff to produce expert testimony when establishing a products liability claim. See, e.g., Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132(M), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30225 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) (granting summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony to support a claim that a pressure cooker was defective); Chancellor v. Church & Dwight Co., No. 5:20-cv-00145-TBR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190805, at *14 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2021) (liquid laundry detergent container); Fields, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25221 (automatic door); Hill v. Express Tan, Inc., No. 1:16CV-00175-JHM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66808 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2019) (tanning bed screen).
See Jarrett v. Duro-Med Indus., No. 05-102-JBC, 2008 WL 89932, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 8, 2008) ("In products liability cases, expert witnesses are generally necessary to prove such matters as product defect and proximate causation, 'unless of course the nature of the defect and the resultant injuries are so obvious as to fall within the general knowledge of the ordinary person.'" (emphasis added) (quoting Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132(M), 2007 WL 1217744, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007))). The crushing effect on a human body caught between an industrial boom lift and the underside of a fixed structure in the absence of an anti-entrapment device would appear to fit the category of injuries which are so obvious that an ordinary person would not require an expert to explain the element of causation.
Expert testimony is essential to establish the existence of a defect that is outside the general knowledge of a lay person. Toyota Motor Sales, 2012 WL 176473, at *4; see also Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132(M), 2007 WL 1217744, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) ("Expert testimony is almost always needed to meet the plaintiff's burden in a products liability case."). A jury cannot speculate that a product is defective "simply because an unusual or unexplained event has occurred."
"Expert witnesses are 'generally necessary' in a Kentucky products liability case to prove the presence of a defect." Wells v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2016 WL 1453912, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2016) (citing Honaker v. Innova, Inc., 2007 WL 1217744, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) (quoting William S. Hanes, Kentucky Jurisprudence: Torts ยง 21-28 (1987)); see also Stevens v. Keller Ladders, 1 Fed. Appx. 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2001) (stating that an expert witness is "probably necessary" to show defective design) (quoting 4A American Law of Products Liability 3d ยง 54:81, at 54-194 (Supp. 1999)).
By contrast, "matters of general knowledge" do not require expert testimony. Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. CIV.A. 1:04-CV-132(M, 2007 WL 1217744, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007). In fact, matters such as causation can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence and are questions of fact for the jury.
A plaintiff is generally required to present expert testimony to support a claim under either theory, "unless of course the nature of the defect and resultant injuries are so obvious as to fall within the general knowledge of any ordinary person." Honaker v. Innova, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-132, 2007 WL 1217744, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2007) (citation omitted); see West v. KKI, LLC, 300 S.W.3d 184, 197 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). The alleged defect here is not so obvious. As such, the Court will analyze: (a) the admissibility of Yonts's proposed expert testimony, (b) Yonts's strict liability claim, and then (c) Yonts's negligence claim.
For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED. Joint Local Rule 7.1 does not provide for the filing of a surreply, and, as a matter of practice, parties who wish to file a surreply generally seek leave of Court to do so. Honaker v. Innova, Inc., 2007 WL 1217742, at *1 (W.D.Ky. Apr. 23, 2007). No such request was filed in this case.