Machine guarding and industrial equipment engineer
Expert class library · Product engineering · Either side
Addresses whether industrial machines such as presses, conveyors and balers had adequate guards, interlocks and lockout features, in workplace injury product claims.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What guard, interlock or barrier would have prevented the injury, and was it feasible and available when the machine was made?
- Did the expert design, sketch or test the proposed guard or interlock, and what would it cost the machine in utility?
- Which ANSI B11, ANSI or OSHA provision does the opinion rely on, and does that provision actually require the feature the expert proposes?
- Did the expert inspect the machine or a sister machine and understand how and where operators and maintenance workers interact with it?
- How does the opinion account for the way the worker was using the machine, including removed guards, manual modes and employer instructions?
Methods
- ANSI B11 and OSHA 1910 comparison
- Guarding and interlock analysis
- Hazard analysis and risk assessment
- Feasible alternative guard design
How the testimony is attacked
- No tested alternative design. Defendants argue that the expert never designed or tested the guard or interlock he says was required. In Lara v. Delta International Machinery the court excluded an engineer who had done no testing of an interlocked table saw guard and said he did not need to see the saw.
- Misreading the standard. Challengers check whether the cited standard says what the expert claims. In Clark v. River Metals Recycling the Seventh Circuit noted that the ANSI provision the expert relied on required a railing but said nothing requiring the fixed ladder or toeboard he proposed.
- Too thin a report. A short report that names a fix without explaining where it goes, what it costs or how it affects use invites exclusion. Clark upheld exclusion of a report that did not develop the proposed ladder and guardrail design.
- Ignoring utility and foreseeable use. Defendants argue that a guard that blocks needed tasks is not a reasonable alternative. In Lara the court faulted the expert for conceding that some cuts could not be made with the guard in place and answering that the user should use a different machine.
- Hired-gun bias and misuse. Defendants argue the expert ignored the operator's misuse or was predisposed to find a defect. In Vicuna v. O.P. Schuman & Sons the court treated litigation-driven work as a matter of credibility and found the expert had considered foreseeable use of the machine in manual mode with the guard open.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, (guard* OR interlock) AND machine AND engineer AND expert AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 77 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 3, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Clark v. River Metals Recycling, LLC929 F.3d 434 | 7th Cir. 2019 | The Seventh Circuit affirmed exclusion of a mechanical engineer's opinion that a car crusher needed a ladder, toeboards and guardrails because his brief report misread the ANSI standard he cited, did not develop the proposed design and showed little knowledge of the machine. |
| Excluded | Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.174 F. Supp. 3d 719 | E.D.N.Y. 2016 | The court found a safety engineer qualified but excluded under Rule 702 his opinion that a table saw was defective for lacking an irremovable guard or interlock, because he did no testing, did not design the alternative and ignored the effect on the saw's utility. |
| Admitted | Vicuna v. O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc.298 F. Supp. 3d 419 | E.D.N.Y. 2017 | The court denied a motion to preclude the plaintiff's engineer on a packaging machine that could run in manual mode without its guard, finding him qualified and his opinion reliable because he had analyzed alternative designs with feasibility, cost and utility and had accounted for how the operator used the machine. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.