McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01499
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 43
In McDougall v. CRC Industries, Judge Tunheim denied summary judgment and partly granted and partly denied expert-exclusion motions in a wrongful-death products case.
David A. McDougall’s remaining wrongful-death claims against CRC Industries, Inc. will proceed beyond summary judgment. The ruling also limits some expert opinions while allowing most of the challenged expert testimony to be used subject to trial procedures and cross-examination.
What happened
McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc. concerns Cynthia A. McDougall’s death in a crash allegedly caused by a driver who inhaled CRC’s dust-remover product. David A. McDougall sued CRC over the product’s design, warnings, and alleged negligence.
The court found that evidence could allow a jury to decide whether CRC should have foreseen that someone might inhale the product while driving and injure a bystander, whether CRC’s conduct substantially contributed to the death, and whether its warnings and design were defective. The court also ruled on the parties’ challenges to expert testimony.
Judge Tunheim denied CRC’s motion for summary judgment. He granted in part and denied in part both sides’ motions to exclude expert testimony, including limiting some opinions while allowing most of the challenged testimony to remain available for trial.
The detailed version
- McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc. · No. 0:20-cv-01499
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Cynthia A. McDougall was killed in a July 22, 2019, vehicle crash in Baudette, Minnesota. The other driver, Kyle Neumiller, allegedly became intoxicated after inhaling CRC Industries, Inc.’s compressed-gas dust remover and then crossed into oncoming traffic. David A. McDougall sued CRC, individually and as the court-appointed wrongful-death trustee, asserting remaining claims for strict liability based on defective design, strict liability based on failure to warn, and negligence. The opinion states that some claims had previously been dismissed and that McDougall voluntarily withdrew others.
CRC is responsible for the CRC Duster’s design, research, manufacture, distribution, labeling, and marketing. The product contains 1,1-difluoroethane, a gas that can produce intoxicating effects when inhaled. The evidence described in the opinion included CRC’s knowledge that people intentionally inhaled dusters, warnings about misuse, the prior use of a bittering agent, reports of inhalant abuse, and evidence concerning possible alternative formulas or packaging.
Summary Judgment
The court applied Minnesota law to the negligence and products-liability claims. It held that genuine disputes of material fact prevented judgment for CRC before trial.
On duty, the court explained that a manufacturer may have a duty to protect users and foreseeable bystanders from dangers arising from intended or reasonably foreseeable misuse. The court found this a close question because evidence could support a finding that CRC should have anticipated that a person might inhale the product, drive while intoxicated, and injure or kill a bystander. The court therefore denied summary judgment on whether CRC owed a duty to Mrs. McDougall.
On proximate cause, the court concluded that a jury could find CRC’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the death and that Neumiller’s conduct was a foreseeable intervening event rather than a superseding cause. The court also rejected CRC’s argument that the design-defect claim necessarily failed because McDougall lacked proof of a feasible alternative design, holding that such proof was not required in this case. For the failure-to-warn claim, the court found a factual dispute because Neumiller testified both that he did not read the instructions on the day of the crash and that he had read them at some earlier point. The court denied CRC’s motion for summary judgment on all three remaining claims; it did not decide CRC’s ultimate liability.
Expert-Testimony Rulings
The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the reliability standard for expert testimony. It ruled on ten challenges as follows:
- CRC’s motion concerning Dr. Charles Reznikoff was granted as to his opinions about proposed alternative designs because those ideas were not sufficiently grounded or shown to be feasible, and was otherwise denied.
- CRC’s motion concerning Lieutenant Donald Marose was granted as to his opinion about CRC’s corporate knowledge because that opinion was speculative, and was otherwise denied.
- CRC’s motion concerning Richard Stern’s testimony was denied.
- CRC’s motion concerning Dr. Fred Apple’s report and testimony was denied.
- CRC’s motion concerning Dr. Brian Perron was granted as to his supplemental report, which the court did not need to consider, and was otherwise denied.
- CRC’s motion concerning Dr. Justin King’s testimony was denied.
- McDougall’s motion concerning Richard Kingston was granted as to his opinion that CRC Duster was not inherently dangerous when used as directed, and was otherwise denied.
- McDougall’s motion concerning Daniel Lofgren’s testimony was denied insofar as the issue was deferred to a ruling at trial. The court required CRC to lay a proper foundation for Lofgren’s opinion involving an omitted assumption about the angle and trajectory of Neumiller’s vehicle.
- McDougall’s motion concerning Delmar Morrison’s testimony was denied.
- McDougall’s motion concerning Melissa Snelson’s testimony was denied.
Disposition
The court denied Defendant CRC Industries, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted in part and denied in part CRC’s and David A. McDougall’s motions to exclude expert testimony, with the specific rulings listed above. The opinion leaves the remaining claims for further proceedings and does not enter a final ruling on liability.
Read the full 43-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.