In a recent decision, Vakili v. MTD Products Inc., 2025 WL 3141940 (M.D. Pa. 2025), the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in deciding on a Daubert motion and a motion for summary judgment, precluded the plaintiff’s expert on the grounds that he is unable to offer an opinion, with respect to causation, in an area outside his expertise. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had no other evidence to establish causation, so it granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgement.
In Vakili, the plaintiff alleged that a defect in his snow thrower caused him to sustain serious injuries to his hand, specifically partial amputations of his pinkie and middle fingers. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer should have provided a clean out tool to help clear clogs of snow out of the thrower. In order to support his claim, the plaintiff retained an engineer to support this position. The expert opined that the manufacturer’s failure to provide a cleanout tool caused the plaintiff’s injuries. In response, the manufacturer moved to preclude the plaintiff’s expert and moved for summary judgment.
The Vakili Court turned to the Federal Rules of Evidence to determine whether such expert opinion would be necessary and fall within the appropriate framework. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. An expert’s opinion must “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” See Cohen v. Cohen, 125 F.4th 454, 464 (3d Cir. 2025). If an expert offers an opinion outside his expertise, it will not help the jury and must be excluded. See Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328, 357-58 (Pa. 2014)
The Vakili Court looked at the plaintiff’s allegation that “the subject snow thrower was defective for failing to include a cleanout tool.” Therefore, to survive a motion for summary judgement, the plaintiff would have needed to show some evidence that the lack of a cleanout tool caused his injuries. In reviewing the plaintiff’s evidence, the Middle District noted that he only provided the report written by his expert. The Middle District reviewed the plaintiff’s deposition, where he did not state that he would have used a cleanout tool had it been provided. Plaintiff’s expert did not state what methodology he used to conclude that the lack of a cleanout tool caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the expert is not a behavioral scientist and, therefore, could not opine that the plaintiff would have used a cleanout tool had it been provided. For those reasons, the Vakili Court granted the manufacturer’s Daubert motion and precluded the plaintiff’s expert. Without the expert, the plaintiff did not have any other evidence that a jury could consider in making a factual finding on causation, specifically the lack of a cleanout tool. As such, the Middle District granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment.
Given this decision, the choice of an expert, and the field of expertise, can dramatically affect the outcome of a case. Importantly, a party’s poor choice of an expert could provide an additional avenue for the early disposition of a case.
The Vakili decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Joseph Feigin, Esquire and/or Conrad Benedetto, Esquire
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.