Bettencourt v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC

Background

Jesica Ann Bettencourt suffered hand lacerations when the blade assembly of a SharkNinja Ninja BL610 blender fell out while she was pouring a smoothie. She sued SharkNinja, alleging strict and negligent products liability based on the company’s failure to provide a locking mechanism for the blade assembly.

Bettencourt submitted an expert report from Derek King. King proposed a simple snap or locking mechanism to hold the blade assembly in place when the blender lid was off or unlocked. His five opinions were that: (1) the blender’s design was defective because the blade assembly could separate unintentionally and safer alternative designs existed; (2) the product’s warnings and prior recalls showed SharkNinja knew about the hazard from loose blades; (3) SharkNinja’s Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis did not address the hazard; (4) SharkNinja would have implemented a locking mechanism if it had addressed the hazard; and (5) the lack of a locking mechanism likely caused Bettencourt’s injury.

SharkNinja moved to exclude King’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards governing relevant and reliable expert testimony. The opinion states that SharkNinja also filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court addressed in a separate order.

Court’s analysis

The court found King qualified to testify about the blender’s design because he had engineering degrees and experience in failure analysis, design, and risk assessment involving blenders. SharkNinja did not challenge his qualifications.

Opinion Nos. 1 and 2 admitted

The court denied the motion as to Opinion No. 1. It found King’s opinion about unintended separation and a safer alternative design relevant and reliable enough for admission. Although portions of King’s report appeared to copy facts from a report involving a different SharkNinja product and incident, the court said those errors could be addressed through cross-examination. The court also found that the differences between the comparison product and the blender, and King’s lack of testing in this report, were subjects for cross-examination rather than reasons to exclude the opinion.

The court also denied the motion as to Opinion No. 2. It held that the blender’s warnings were relevant because they suggested SharkNinja knew that blade-assembly separation posed a potential risk. The court clarified that the warnings alone did not establish liability.

Opinion Nos. 3, 4, and 5 excluded

The court granted the motion as to Opinion Nos. 3 and 4. It found Opinion No. 3 speculative because King offered no evidence that SharkNinja failed to consider loose blades in its design-failure analysis. Opinion No. 4 was also speculative because it relied on a hypothetical chain of events about what SharkNinja would have done if it had considered the hazard.

The court granted the motion as to Opinion No. 5 because it relied on inaccurate facts. King stated that the injury was caused by the pitcher being tipped over without the lid, but Bettencourt testified that she tilted the pitcher with the lid on and that the lid then fell off. The court therefore found that the opinion was not based on sufficient facts or reliable application of expert methods.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer denied the motion to exclude as to Opinion Nos. 1 and 2 and granted the motion as to Opinion Nos. 3, 4, and 5. This order ruled on the admissibility of King’s expert testimony; it did not decide the separate summary judgment motion.