Product design engineer
Expert class library · Mass tort and product liability · Plaintiff side
Opines that a product was defectively designed and that a safer, feasible alternative design existed. Supports those opinions with testing, failure analysis, and accepted engineering principles.
What this expert is retained to answer
- Did the product's design create an unreasonable risk of the injury that occurred?
- Was a safer alternative design technically and economically feasible when the product was made?
- Would the alternative design have prevented or reduced the plaintiff's injury?
- What caused the product to fail in this incident?
Methods
- Alternative design analysis
- Failure mode analysis
- Physical testing and prototyping
- Risk-utility analysis
How the testimony is attacked
- Untested theory of defect. Defendants argue the engineer never tested the failure mechanism or the proposed fix. In Nease v. Ford the Fourth Circuit reversed a verdict because the trial court treated every reliability challenge to the plaintiff's engineer as a matter of weight and never assessed his untested theory.
- Testing is not always required. Plaintiffs respond that testing is only one Daubert factor and that field data can substitute for it. In Anderson v. Raymond the Seventh Circuit held that customers who bought the manufacturer's optional forklift door had effectively tested the proposed alternative for the expert.
- Conflict with industry standards. Manufacturers point to ANSI or similar standards that favor the existing design. The Anderson court held that disagreement with an ANSI preference does not bar an expert, and that a history of defeating similar claims elsewhere is irrelevant under Rule 702.
- Conclusions rejected in other cases. Defendants cite prior rulings rejecting the same alternative design. Courts focus on the expert's method in the case at hand, as the Seventh Circuit emphasized in reversing the exclusion in Anderson.
- Failure analysis without a sound factual basis. Opponents attack causation opinions that do not rest on examination of the product and scene. In Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder the Eighth Circuit upheld admission where the engineer examined the damaged ladder, its design and specifications, and competitors' ladders.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "alternative design" AND engineer AND defect AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 73 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Nease v. Ford Motor Co.848 F.3d 219 | 4th Cir. 2017 | The Fourth Circuit held that the district court abandoned its gatekeeping role by dismissing every challenge to the plaintiff's engineering expert as going to weight, concluded his defect opinion should not have reached the jury, and reversed the verdict for the plaintiff. |
| Exclusion reversed | Anderson v. Raymond Corp.61 F.4th 505 | 7th Cir. 2023 | The Seventh Circuit held that excluding the plaintiff's engineer's opinion that a forklift door was a feasible safer design was error because his method rested on accepted principles and accident data, so the lack of hands-on testing went to weight, and ordered a new trial. |
| Admitted | Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC936 F.3d 824 | 8th Cir. 2019 | The Eighth Circuit affirmed admission of the plaintiff's engineer's ladder failure opinion because he applied engineering principles to the accident account, the damaged ladder, its specifications, and competing designs. |
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 2, 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.