Alaska Employment Law

U. S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has denied two defense in limine motions in the window blind strangulation case reviewed here yesterday. 

In his first order, Sedwick permitted plaintiffs to call Dr. Jon Jacobson, a multi-degreed professional engineer, to testify on the adequacy of a trade association safety standard.  Sedwick rejected defense objections based on a) Jacobson’s failure to inspect the window blind cord (irrelevant); b) the fact that Jacobson developed his opinions expressly for the purpose of testifying  (”does not necessarily cast doubt on the reliability of his testimony”); and c) the fact that his testimony “is difficult to understand” (”Difficult testimony cannot be said to be inherently misleading, or expert testimony would be precluded where it is most helpful.”).   

As to defense objections to Jacobson’s methodology, Sedwick said: “Since his testimony is not scientific in nature, shortcomings in his methodology have less effect on the reliability of his opinions.”

Order No. 1

In the second in limine order, Sedwick permitted plaintiffs to present most of the expected testimony of engineer Stuart Statler, former commissioner of the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (1979-1986),  on the adequacy of the safety warning.   Sedwick did bar Statler from testifying on whether the defendant owed the decedent a legal duty.  Sedwick refused to exclude Statler simply because another federal judge (Western District of Kentucky) had found that his expertise was “generic,” that he had proffered legal conclusions, and that his opinions were in part “unduly inflammatory.”  

Sedwick also said: “Even though the district judge [in Kentucky] found that Statler “appear[ed] to be the ‘quintessential expert for hire[,]’ . . . the fact “[t]hat an expert testifies for money does not necessarily cast doubt on the reliability of his testimony.”  

Order No. 2

Rountree v. Ching Feng Blinds Industry Co, Ltd., 3:04-cv-112 JWS (D.Alaska Orders of June 17, 2008)