Mechanical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Unicender Design Shortcomings Excluded
Posted on April 18, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff George Land (“Land”) initiated a lawsuit against Rock Exotica, LLC, following a catastrophic fall while using the Unicender, a climbing device manufactured by the company. Land, an experienced arborist with two decades of experience, contended that the Unicender was defectively designed, which led to his accident. He alleged that during his ascent using the device in a double rope technique, it failed to operate as expected after he was struck by a falling tree section.
To support his claims, Land designated Dr. James Glancey, a licensed professional engineer, as his expert witness. Glancey was expected to testify about the design and safety features of the Unicender, arguing that a guard could have prevented the injuries Land sustained during his fall. However, Glancey’s testing methods raised significant concerns, particularly as he did not replicate the conditions under which Land used the device. Instead, he conducted load tests using a single rope technique and failed to provide supportive evidence regarding the proposed guard’s efficacy, leading to questions about the reliability of his testimony.
In response, Rock Exotica filed a motion to exclude Glancey’s testimony under the Daubert standard, asserting it was not based on sufficient data or reliable methods.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Dr. James Glancey holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Davis and is a licensed professional engineer with over 20 years of experience in the field. Furthermore, he has published more than 50 engineering articles and has served as an expert in over 200 product-related matters.
Discussion by the Court
Dr. James Glancey was expected to opine on the design and safety features of the Unicender, arguing that the lack of a guard could be considered a design defect contributing to Land’s injuries during his climbing accident.
A. Glancey is Unqualified
Rock Exotica challenged Glancey’s qualifications, noting that although he has extensive experience in mechanical design, he has never worked in the arborist industry. The defense emphasized that Glancey has never designed or studied arborist climbing devices, stating:
- He compared the guard to helmets or chisels with shields but could not identify any climbing tools with similar safety features.
- His familiarity with safety mechanisms in other contexts does not translate directly to the climber’s needs or the functionality of the Unicender.
- Furthermore, while he has a robust background in engineering, his lack of direct experience with the particular use case and context of the Unicender significantly undermines his credibility.
B. Glancey’s Opinions are Unreliable
1. Untested and Unengineered Concepts
Glancey proposed that a guard could prevent the injuries sustained by Land. However, his testimony lacked the reliability required by the Court.
a) No Prototypes or Drawings
Glancey did not produce any design drawings or prototypes related to the guard or alternative safety mechanisms. He failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of how such a guard would be integrated or function in the context of the Unicender.
b) Lack of Testing
He conducted tests using a single rope technique and failed to test the device under the double rope technique, which was used by Land at the time of the accident. This omission leaves his conclusions unsubstantiated and speculative.
2. Failure to Establish Causation and Feasibility
Rock Exotica argued that Glancey’s opinions did not establish a reliable causal link between the alleged design defect and Land’s injuries.
a) No Evidence of Impact on Safety
Glancey did not provide data or analysis demonstrating how the proposed guard could have altered the outcome of the incident. He acknowledged that his design concepts were theoretical at best and did not address how they would consistently prevent accidents in real-world scenarios.
b) Inability to Quantify Risks
The expert failed to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis or evaluate how the guard might interact with the conditions that led to Land’s fall. Without empirical assessments or data-driven insights, his conclusions cannot be considered valid under Daubert.
Analysis
The Court held that Glancey is qualified to opine about design defects in the Unicender. His mechanical-engineering background and familiarity with product testing show that he possesses specialized knowledge to analyze how a climbing device functions under various loads.
The Court concluded that Glancey’s opinions were inadequate to support Land’s claims in this case. His failure to generate testable and reliable alternative designs, lack of empirical evidence for his assertions, and inability to connect his proposed modifications to safety improvements rendered his testimony speculative.
The Court found that without supporting documentation or design specifications, Glancey could not meet the burden of proof established under Daubert, leading to the exclusion of his testimony and summary judgment in favor of Rock Exotica.
Glancey’s expertise allowed him to assert that Rock Exotica’s engineering and testing procedures were less structured compared to other manufacturers and his testimony established a duty to manufacture products safely. However, the Court ruled that there’s nothing to tie that failure to the harm that Land suffered.
Held
The Court granted Rock Exotica’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s mechanical engineering expert witness, Dr. James Glancey’s opinions concerning
the ability of a Unicender device to support certain amounts of weight and an alternative design for the Unicender. The motion was otherwise denied as moot.
Key Takeaway:
In this case, Land hangs his hat on Glancey’s testimony to create factual disputes. However, Glancey did not produce a design prototype or any
drawings of a guard, nor did he run tests with the Unicender and a guard. Basically, engineering experts routinely rely on conceptual alternatives to highlight potential design shortcomings. Expert testimony about alternative designs requires more than an inventive mind. It requires real science.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Land V. Case Rock Exotica, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv4627 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Order Date: | April 16, 2025 |
