Brooks v. Outboard Marine Corporation

Matthew Brooks was a 14-year-old whose mother rented a boat for Brooks to fish from with his friend Andrew May (who was 15 years old). Neither boy was allowed to rent the boat, but the owner of the boat shop understood that the boys would be using the boat unsupervised. Matthew’s fishing line wrapped around the propeller, and when he was trying to free the line, the boat shifted into reverse, possibly because Matthew’s shirt caught on the gearshift. Matthew’s hand was then amputated by the propeller. Matthew’s father, William Brooks (plaintiff), filed suit against the owner of the boat shop, Andrew May, and Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) (defendant), which manufactured the motor. William settled with the boat shop owner and Andrew May but proceeded with a suit against OMC on two product-liability claims. William ultimately moved forward with the case on the theory of a design defect—that the motor was defective because the motor did not have a shutoff device, called a kill switch, that could have prevented Matthew’s injury or lessened its severity. To that end, William used an expert witness, Robert Warren, who, after Warren’s deposition, prepared a report consistent with the design-defect theory. OMC had moved for summary judgment, which the magistrate judge found premature. Warren then underwent a second deposition. OMC renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that Warren lacked sufficient education or experience to testify as an expert and that his conclusion that the kill switch would have lessened the injury or prevented the accident was not supported by testing or examination of the boat or motor. Warren had not examined the boat, had not spoken to the witnesses, did not know the boat’s dimensions, and had run no tests to support his theory. The magistrate judge, considering this argument, recommended granting OMC’s motion for summary judgment, which the district court then followed. William then appealed, arguing that OMC had to rebut Warren with OMC’s expert and that the district court erred in finding Warren’s testimony to be unreliable and speculative.