Coronavirus Update: To New & Existing Clients Learn More ›

Super Lawyers
Illinois State Bar Association
Justia Lawyer Rating
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Avvo Rating
BBB Accredited Business

Examination 4 - cross and direct of Safety Engineer and expert witness in tools equipment product liability case - Part 2

Download PDF Version

MR. ROSIN: Objection as to leading.


Q. What is your understanding of the source of the guard?

A. The guard was designed by Mr. Rosin and he's the one who had it built.

Q. Now, Mr. Morita talked to us about the hierarchy of safety.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand that concept?

A. Sure.

Q. Can you explain the concept to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

A. It's a fairly, common principle in safety engineering anytime we're designing products. The first thing we try to do, of course, is identify what the hazards are that are associated with the product and with the use of the product. Once we've done that, then we proceed to try. to make the product safer. We try first to eliminate any hazards we

can. If we can design a hazard out of a product, then we have eliminated that hazard. If I had a brushcutter and I didn't want to be exposed to the hazard of gasoline, for example, I would make the product an electric powered product and I wouldn't be exposed to that hazard; I would have designed the hazard of gasoline out of the product.

Many hazards we can't

design out of the product however. If I want to have a brushcutter with a blade on it, I can't eliminate the hazard of the blade. The spinning blade has the potential to harm and as long as that's a desirable feature of the product; that is, the spinning blade, then that hazard remains, it can't be designed out.

The next thing we do

then is we try to safeguard against that hazard. We do that with barriers, we do that with guarding of

various types; there are a number of different methods of safeguarding. On this product the most obvious would be some sort of guard or barrier that would stand between the blade and whomever we're trying to protect. So that's the next step. After you have tried to design it out and you can't, then you try to safeguard.

Now when you've done

all of those things, there are still going to be residual hazards, there are still going to be things that you need to know to operate a product safely and so we instruct and we warn about those. And that's the hierarchy is identify, design it out, guard against it and warn against it.

Q. Mr. Gililland, I'm showing you Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. This is the design that Mr. Morita is proposing?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you see any potential

problems with that type of guarding?

A. Yes. I've used a guard that we had made that's very similar to this and there are many prob1ems associated with it.

Q. And briefly can you discuss those with the ladies and gentlemen?

A. The first problem it's obvious when you pick it up is it's very heavy. Now you can do some things about that but anytime you put an attachment down at the blade end, you're going to be adding weight and when you add weight, you add to the effort that it takes to use the machine, you add to the fatigue of the operator and over a period of an 8 -hour day, that's a very important consideration so weight is No. 1.

The second thing you've

done is you've introduced additional hazards with the placement of this guard. This guard now does not cut efficiently, it actually, interferes

with the cutting operation which makes the operator want to swing the blade harder and that's not something that you really want to encourage operators to do; you want it to be an easy clean sweeping motion when you're using a tool not a hard pushing motion as you would with a hand-held scythe, for example, like the Grim Reaper carries around.Those are things you have to swing very hard and this device with this guard makes you swing much harder, swing the blade harder at the material. It also doesn't cut efficiently so you

have to cut over and over and over


It's something of a

grass catcher, it clogs very easily in grass, in thin fibrous material. And when it clogs, the only thing you can do is stop the machine and reach down there with your hand and remove the clog. Now you do that enough

times and there's the likelihood that operators will not stop the machine when they start reaching in to the blade area to clean up the clog so you've introduced that hazard.

Those things all together say that this isn't really a good idea. It adds no additional protection to the operator. The operator is already protected by the guard that's in place, by the' shield that's in place. If he's using the machine as it's designed, if he's got his harness in place, he's holding on to the handles, he's not going to be injured and this guard does nothing for him. So in balance, this actually makes the machine less safe to use.

Q. Mr. Gililland, did you actually use the RedMax. brush cutter which is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 8 to cut various types of vegetation?

A. I don't know if that's the actual machine I used, I think it is. I believe that's the one I used, yes.

Q. And did you videotape that testing?

A. Yes, I did, both with the RedMax -

MR. BELL: We would

like to show that to the ladies and gentlemen.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. ROSIN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed. You need to set up?

MR. BELL: Yeah, I need to have the videographer. -

THE COURT: How long will that take?


THE COURT: Is the screen visible to all the jurors?

MR. BELL: Your Honor,

the video is. Defendant's Exhibit No. 130.

MR. ROSIN: May I is this -

THE COURT: Just wait one moment. Are we ready?

MR. BELL: Yes. THE COURT: You may proceed.


Q. Mr. Gililland, would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen what they're about to see here?

A. Yes. I took a sample of a similar RedMax brushcutter literally out into a field with - and, in fact, it's equipped as you see it, with the blade, with the shield, identical to what was on the machine at the time of the accident.

I just took it out on

the field and used it to cut various materials, vines, weeds, grass,

what ever was out there, that's what this video is, it's just me cutting with the machine.

Q. How did you get the blade to start rotating, Mr. Gililland?

A. You squeeze the trigger, that makes the engine run faster.

Q. Are you cutting in a pivoting motion, are you cutting from left to right, right to left or left, right back and forth?

A. Well, it's the way the material is being dragged and you'll see all the cutting is actually taking place from right to left. I'm re-cutting some of that as I bring it back to the right but the cutting happens from right to left.

Q. What time of year are you using this?

A. This was in June. June of lastyear.

Q. And the geographical area where you're at?

A. It's in St. Louis, just outside of. St. Louis. We're 20 miles outside of town.

Q. What type of field are you in?

A. Well, it's a large field that's actually about to be developed by a developer but just a large flat pasture that has various types of weeds and grasses growing in it.

Q. Are you cutting at the very base of the weeds right at the level with the ground?

A. Right, I'm trying to clear the land so what I'm doing is cutting very close to the ground.

Q. Is that the end of it?

A. That's it.

Q. Mr. Gililland, did you do any survey of other manufacturers brushcutting guard designs?

A. Yes, I did a literature survey, collected owners manuals, took photographs of a wide variety of

other - of manufacturers and. implements and I also purchased and used some of those other implements.

Q. Let me show you - did you do a videotape of the use of another manufactured brushcutter?-

A. Yes, I videotaped everything that I did when there was an engine running.

Q. Mr. Gililland., I'm going to ask the videographer to show us Defendant's Exhibit 120 which is your field test of another brushcutter design.

MR. ROSIN: Objection to the

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.


Q. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of. the jury what they are about to see here?

A. This is a different type of metal blade, the. brand of the unit is

Stihl, S-T-I-H-L, obviously it's a four-tooth blade. It's more for grasses and weeds than it is for saplings and such, but you can just see it in use here. Just a different kind of blade for a different kind of material.

What I was

demonstrating here is that it doesn't cut small trees very well. It says you're not supposed to do that and this is why. As I said, this blade is for generally cutting grasses and you see it does a very good job with thick heavy grasses. That's the end of it, it's just repeating.

MR. ROSIN:. Side bar, your Honor.


ladies and gentlemen, we'll give you a recess here for a few minutes. Sir, could you step out of the courtroom, please.


(Whereupon the following proceedings, were had outside the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: You requested a side bar?

MR. ROSIN: Yes, I'm

objecting to the use of the various manuals as demonstrations for I'm. not even sure what they're going to be used for at this point. They're all other products by other manufacturers.

MR. BELL: Your Honor, if you'll - Robert, are you done?


MR. BELL: If you'11

recall on motions in limine, we had a trial brief on the industry practices and we discussed with the Court that we would have our expert, who's done a survey of other manufacturers, how they design their brush cutters with respect to the guarding, and this is to lay a foundation that he has looked at other manufacturers'

products through their catalog-information, their safety manual information and to lay a foundation for a blowup that we have showing various manufacturers' brushcutter guard designs and various manufacturers warning instructions dealing with the issue of bystander safety which is what this case is about.

So it's to lay a

foundation with respect to the. industry practices on how brushcutters are guarded by other manufacturers as-well as Komatsu Zenoah. And I believe the Court had previously indicated that pursuant to the Rios decision, that you were going to permit that type of evidence.

THE COURT: And these

are brushcutters from when or manuals fromwhen?

MR. BELL: Types of brushcutter designs that were

contemporaneous with the brushcutter in this case.


objection will be overruled as long as the testimony is that these were designs that were contemporaneous, something that the witness will testify that he has relied upon in rendering his opinions. The actual manuals will not be submitted to the jurors.

MR. BELL: No, I'm just

laying a foundation for this exhibit, your Honor. It's just a picture of the metal blade and brushcutter from these various manuals into one piece of - one piece of demonstrative evidence, but this is the foundation for this piece of demonstrative evidence is these individual manuals so it's laying a foundation for this document.

And then we have the users manuals for each of these

companies which lays the foundation for this piece of demonstrative evidence. For the record, this is Defendant's Exhibit 19 which shows the various brushcutter guard designs and Defendant's Exhibit 18 shows the various operator safety manual instructions for bystander safety basically to show that pursuant to the defendant's theory of the case is that the Komatsu Zenoah design and instructions were in conforiance with. the industry practices.

So we've got individual

manuals that these pictures come from which lays the foundation for Defendant's Exhibit 19 and the manuals for Defendant's Exhibit 18.


MR. BELL: That's what I'm about to do.


objection will be overruled as long as the testimony or foundation from

the witness says that these were contemporaneous designs as to the one that caused plaintiff injury.

Take a break for a few minutes.

MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.

(Whereupon a short recess was had.)

(Whereupon the

following proceedings were had in court in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I won't be allowing the witness to testify to certain documents or articles that have not been admitted in evidence. This testimony is allowed to a limited purpose, it is allowed so that the witness may tell you what he has relied on to form certain opinions.

The materials the

witness says he has relied on or used to reach his opinions is not evidence

in this case and may not be considered or used as evidence. You may consider the material for the purpose of deciding what weight, if any, you will give to the opinions testified to by this witness.

You may proceed.


Q. Mr. Gililland, Mr. Morita has proposed a right sided -

MR. ROSIN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained as to the form of the question.


Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 shows a right-hand side guard on a brushcutter?

A. Yes.

Q. Based upon your survey of other manufacturers of brushcutters, can you tell us whether or not you found any manufacturer that offers a guard on the entire right side of the brushcutter?

A. No, there's nothing similar to that; hasn't been, isn't now.

Q. How long have you been in the business of manufacturing and representing companies that manufacture power cutting tools including brushcutters?

A. Since 1973.

Q. Have you ever seen a manufacturer offer a guard like what is proposed in Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 on a brushcutter?

MR. ROSIN: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, I havenot.


Q. Showing you what I've marked as Defendant's Exhibit 40. Is this a contemporaneous manufacturers' catalog of brushcutters?

MR. ROSIN: Counsel, may I see it? Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, what was the question?


Q. Is that a manufacturer.that was contemporaneous- with the Komatsu Zenoah brushcutter in this case? Manufacturer of.brushcutters?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And the company is?

A. This. is Shindaiwa.

Q.- And do they offer a guard on their brushcutter that covers the entire right side of the blade?

A. No, they don't.

Q. Mr. Gililland, I'm showing. you Defendant's Exhibit 43. Is that a manufacturer of brushcutters contemporaneous with Komatsu Zenoah -

A. Yes, it is.

Q. - in this case?

A. Yes.

0. And who is that manufacturer?

A. This is McC.ulloch. •

Q. And do they have the manufactured guard on the right side of the blade on their brushcutter as- plaintiff's proposed guard on Plaintiff's Exhibit 22?

A. No, they do not.

Q. Now.McCulloch has a slightly different guard design?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. Can you explain that to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the purpose of that is?

A. Yes. McCulloch has a design that's made for actually cutting small trees and large saplings and because of that, they have what's called a bumper feature; that is, it's a projection that sticks out from the guard near the blade and the idea is to take -

MR. ROSIN: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.


Q. You' understand the purpose of the guarding design on the McCulloch?

MR. ROSIN: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, I've been involved in the design of similar devices. BY MR. BELL:

Q. Can you explain the purpose of that for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

MR. ROSIN: Excuse me, your Honor. His design that he's involved in I have no objection to. What he's testifying to is what someone else's was the. purpose.

THE COURT: Sustained

with.regard to the witness testifying as to what may have been the purposes of McCulloch in their design. BY MR. BELL: Q. Can you explain the purpose

of the design that you're familiar with?

A Yes.

Q. And can you explain the basis of your familiarity with that design?

A. I was involved in the design and development of the guard.

MR. ROSIN: May we have

some indication of what he's talking about?

THE COURT: Sustained as to foundation.


Q. Can you explain your experience with that guard design?

A. When I was at Poulan Weedeater in the 1970s, I was the safety engineer and later I was the supervisor of engineering laboratories during the initial development of bladed brushcutter devices in this country. We developed a number of different devices one of which was a

device that was made for cutting small trees and when I say small trees, I'm talking about anything from a half inch diameter up to about 4 inches in diameter. It's a special kind of blade and it's a special kind of device that mounts over the blade to enable you to do that, that's my - experience with doing that.

Q. And does it have a finger projection at the top of the blade? A. You could describe it as' a finger projection. It's a bump that points out straight away from the blade.

Q. Can you tell us is that design feature intended to prevent blade bounce or blade kickback?

MR. ROSIN: Excuse me, may we just be certain we're understanding which product he's referring to?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BELL: Your Honor,

may I have the witness come down and draw a picture of the guard?

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Sir, you may step down.


Q. Can you draw the type of guard design that you're familiar with and from your own experience in designing these guards?

A. Yes. If you' look straight down on the top of the blade and assume then that the operator is standing at the bottom of the page facing it. The guard that we're talking about has several projections but one it has the typical kind of shield at the back over the blade and then it also has- a bumper device that comes out and extends beyond the front of the blade

MR. BELL: Let's mark

that as Defendant's Exhibit - what is our next number, Chuck?

MR. RANTIS: 152.

MR. BELL: 152.


Q. And what was the purpose for that projection, Mr. Gililland?

A. The idea is if you want to cut a small tree down and, first of all, you have to have a tooth with a lot of - a blade with a lot of teeth; a four-tooth blade and an eight-tooth blade won't work but if you have something that looks more like a saw blade.

It's rotating as you're looking at in this drawing in a counterclockwise position, the. blade is rotating, and so if I contact the blade, the blade will want to move that material along with it and it will try to take the material and move it and when it does, it moves it into the bumper, the bumper holds it in place while you then push the blade through it and it can be done at the top or on the side.

review of other manufacturers' brushcutters and your experience in actually designing and preparing manuals for brushcutter use, how are bystanders protected in terms of the industry practices that you're familiar with?”

THE COURT: Overruled. Witness may answer.


found that the best way to protect bystanders is to keep them a safe distance away from the machine.


Q. And what is the safe distance given the nature and.use of this type of product?

A. It varies, but typically you'll see anywhere from 45 feet to 75 feet is the recommendation. I think 50 feet, is the more commonly accepted distance that most manufacturers use.

Q. Now, did you have an

occasion to actually fabricate a guard that, covers the right side of the brushcutter blade as proposed by Mr. Rosin and Mr. Morita?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you actually use that guard in the field?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you videotape the use of that guard?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. I'm going to show you what has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 117. Can you lay a foundation for the ladies and gentlemen of what they're about to see here?

A. Yes. This demonstration was done on the same day in the same field with the same machine that you saw in the earlier video and, in fact, we used Mr. Rosin's guard first and then came back and used the standard RedMax guard so the one -

MR. ROSIN: Excuse me.

I object to mischaracterization. He never had this guard.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ROSIN: He used his own.

THE COURT: Sustained.


the reproduction that we created of Mr. Rosin's guard to do this demonstration and then we followed it up with the RedMax so chronologically you're actually seeing them in reverse order, but they are the same day, the same field, cutting, the same materials.

MR. BELL: Al1 right.


actually a comparison of the two, I think you may have the wrong video in.

MR. BELL: I may have. Let me look.

MR. ROSIN: What's the exhibit number that we began showing?

MR. BELL: That's 117,

I will show that in a minute, but I want to show one before it.

THE COURT: Counsel, you're using which exhibit?

MR. BELL: This is 129, your Honor.

THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit 12 9?

MR. BELL: Yeah, Defendant's 129. BY' MR. BELL:

Q. What do you notice there, Mr. Gililland?

A. What you're seeing is that the material is not being well cut and so it's resisting moving the blade and the guard through. The guard is actually dragging and making it difficult to move the blade through to cut. And, of course, it keeps clogging.

Q. You can't cut with this guard, can you?

A. Well, you can -

MR. ROSIN: Objection, he's testifying.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the form of the question.


Q. Can you tell us whether or not you can cut with this guard?

A. You can cut but it's very inefficient and it's very difficult. You're not getting a clean cut, it's difficult to move the blade and the guard through the grass, and I do have to keep re-cutting the same area to get it down.

Q. What are you cutting here, Mr. Gililland?

A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Q. What were you cutting in that area?

A. That's basically a bunch of honeysuckle vines and a couple small trees.

Q. What did you notice here?

A. It's very difficult to move the device through the grass, through the weeds, I have to keep swatting at it and swinging hard and punching at it. It's difficult to work with, it's a- very tiring device to try to use.

The reason for stopping and cleaning that debris off is because when it gets packed with debris like that, it just don't cut at all so you have to clean it out so you can keep cutting.

Q. Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen the reason for the resistance of movement of the brushcutter?

A. It's very simple to understand. If you can imagine a very sharp - holding a very sharp knife in your hand, a samurai sword. if you will, and take that and swing it as hard as you can at the grass,

it's going to move through that grass a certain way but if you put a sheath around that and only expose the cutting edge of that sharp knife or blade and then try to swing it, it's an entirely different animal; it's much harder to move through the material because the box around the blade is now resisting that movement so you don't get the clean cut and you have to keep chopping at it.

There is also a

projection at the far forward edge of this guard that projects beyond what the blade is cutting and that's dragging material that's not being cut so it's hard to move that through as well.

Q. Are there types of material that cause this type of guarding a problem as opposed to other types of material?

A. ‘Some materials will clog better than others; some it will cut

right through and some it won't cut at all. It has a lot to do with how stiff the material is. The stiffer the material, the easier it is to cut; the more flexible it is like a blade of grass, the more difficult it is to cut and when you do cut it, the mother likely it's going to get clogged.

Q. Now this type of material here, was it easier or more difficult to cut?

A. This is just thick fescue and rye grass and it's very difficult. You can see it takes a lot of effort and it does clog quite a bit. That's it.

Q. Now I'm going to show you the comparison video that we put in initially here, it's Plaintiff's Exhibit - Defendant's Exhibit 117. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen what you've done to create Defendant's Exhibit 117?

A. Yes. Both of the videos you have seen. The RedMax machine and the Rosin guard recreation were both done, as I said, on the same day, cutting the same material in the same field with the same machine. What I did was come back and spliced the two films so that you get a side by side. You see one machine cutting this material and then you see the other device cutting the same material and it alternates back and forth between the Rosin guard and the RedMax guard, and so you can see a comparison literally side by side of the two different devices cutting exactly the same material.

If you'll watch the

bottom of the screen, it will tell you which guard is on there. This is the Rosin guard. This is the RedMax' guard, same ‘material. This is the Rosin guard, same material again. This is the RedMax guard, same

material. This is Rosin guard, you see we're getting in some heavier brush that has a few little saplings sticking up in it. There's the RedMax guard, same place. This is the grass, heavy fescue rye grass, Rosin guard. And RedMax guard. And the Rosin guard again, this is the grass again. I think that's the end of it.

Q. Now it's possible to get debris hanging up in either guard, isn't it?

A. Oh, sure, anything you attach to that blade under the right circumstances will collect debris, will catch something. So either one of those devices, under the right circumstances, will hang up.

Q. Well, was there a greater propensity with one or the other to catch?

A. The closer the device is to the blade, the more likely it's going

to clog and that's one of the problems with the Rosin guard is it's so close to the blade, things get stuck in there.

Q. With respect to the

visibility of the cutting surface, can you comment on that with respect to the two guards?

A. With the RedMax guard you can see the blade, you always know where the blade is, you don't have to guess, you don't have to imagine. With the Rosin guard you can only see a portion of the blade and when you don't see that part of the blade, you're having to sort of estimate where the rest of it is so you have a reduced visibility. When you start putting things over the guard, you can't see it anymore or things over the blade, I'm sorry.

Q. Mr. Gililland, how much time have you spent working on this particular case for me?

A. We collected all of the bills up through May and it was I think 100 and - I think 175 hours.

Q. And you've billed me approximately what?

A. Me personally, roughly $28,488. My company, and that is other engineers doing some of this work for me, all total is $48,783.

THE COURT: What was that again?

THE WITNESS: 48,783.


Q. Mr. Gililland, based upon your review of the testimony in this case, your review of the industry practices, your review of the evidence, your review of the brushcutters and brushcutter guarding design, your experience in the industry, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. DeWeese would have been injured in this case if Mr. Trudeau had followed the safety

instructions provided with the Komatsu Zenoah brushcutter?

A. I do have an opinion.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. Mr. Trudeau had he followed even one or two of the instructions, this accident wouldn't have happened. It was his failure to follow an entire sequence of safety precautions and common sense that resulted in this accident.

Q. And can you break that down, what were the instructions and common sense that were violated here?

A. Very simply had he taken the machine outside to a clear area to start it, the accident would not have happened. Had he not started it in a confined area, the accident would not have happened. Had he not started it with other people standing, nearby, the accident would not have happened. Had he not chosen to try to cut in to hard materials in a

confined area with other people there, the accident would not have happened. Take any of those out and nobody gets hurt.

Q. Based upon your review of the evidence, your experience in the industry, your review of the industry practices in the brushcutter- guarding design, brushcutter safety instructions, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the Komatsu Zenoah ah brushcutter in this case was reasonably safe in its design and instructions?

A. I do have an opinion.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. That it is reasonably safe in its design and its instructions.

Q. Are these opinions, are they based upon a reasonable degree of engineering certainty in the field of safety engineering?

A. Yes, they are.”

Q. Again, based upon your

experience in the industry, your review of the ‘evidence in this case, your review of the industry practices in guarding brushcutters and brush c utter design and providing safety instructions with brushcutters, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the Rosin proposed guard is a practical reasonably safe alternative and feasible design?

A. I do. have an opinion.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. It's not a reasonably - it's not a reasonable design. Our technology application requires two parts, one part., of course, is that it'd be ‘doable.-Now physically you can do it, you can put this device or something like it on a machine, but the other part of the equation is it has to be usable, it has to be practical and it has to do so in a way that doesn't encumber the use of the machine, encourage the removal of

the device or make the device less safe; this guard does all of those things, that's why it's not, as a whole, a technologically feasible device even though we can physically put one on a machine.

Q. Based upon your review of the evidence in this case and your experience in the industry, your review of the industry practices, do you have an opinion as to the cause of this accident?

A. Yes.

Q. And based upon a reasonable degree of engineering certainty in. the field of safety engineering what is your opinion?

A. My opinion is is the cause of this action was David Trudeau. He exhibited and he demonstrated a careless disregard for the safety of the people that were in the room with him and it was his actions that caused this accident.

Q. Have all of your opinions that you've given us today been based upon a reasonable degree of certainty in the field of safety engineering? A. Yes.

MR. BELL: One moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. BELL: That's all I have. Hang on one second. BY MR. BELL:

Q. Mr. Gililland, there's another subject that I wanted to cover with you and that's- a safety analysis. Did you find evidence of a safety analysis as exhibited by the users safety instructions?

MR. ROSIN: Objection, leading question.

THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. The

safety analysis is demonstrated by the product itself and by the owners manual which you can't straight from

the product, they go together. If you look at the fact that there are warnings on the product, there are warnings on the blade, there are warnings and safety instructions in the manual, each of those indicates that somebody must have done a safety analysis or those things would never have been identified.

You don't know what to

warn if you don't know what to warn and you learn what to warn about by doing a safety analysis so, of course, there was a safety analysis, done on this machine.


Q. Did you find any evidence of a safety analysis being done with respect to this proposed guard -

A.' No .

Q. - which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 22?

A. No, there's been nothing that I can see that approaches a

safety analysis or even a reasonably conscientious design and development process.

MR. BELL: That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Gililland.

THE COURT: Is there any cross examination?

MR. ROSIN: Yes, there

is. May I have just a minute to set things up?


ladies and gentlemen, we'll take, a recess for a couple of minutes.

(Whereupon a short recess was had.)

THE COURT: You may proceed with your cross examination.

MR. ROSIN: Thank you, your Honor.


' Q. Mr. Gililland, my name is Robert Rosin and thank you for the notoriety you've given me with respect

Look at our product liability page for more information.
250M + Recovered for Our Clients
No Fee Guarantee We Never Charge a Fee Unless We Win
Available 24/7 Available 24-Hours per Day When You Need Us
Client Reviews
Jonathan Rosenfeld was professionally objective, timely, and knowledgeable. Also, his advice was extremely effective regarding my case. In addition, Jonathan was understanding and patient pertaining to any of my questions or concerns. I was very happy with the end result and I highly recommend Jonathan Rosenfeld. Michonne Proulx
Extremely impressed with this law firm. They took control of a bad motorcycle crash that left my uncle seriously injured. Without any guarantee of a financial recovery, they went out and hired accident investigators and engineers to help prove how the accident happened. I am grateful that they worked on a contingency fee basis as there was no way we could have paid for these services on our own. Ethan Armstrong
This lawyer really helped me get compensation for my motorcycle accident case. I know there is no way that I could have gotten anywhere near the amount that Mr. Rosenfeld was able to get to settle my case. Thank you. Daniel Kaim
Jonathan helped my family heal and get compensation after our child was suffered a life threatening injury at daycare. He was sympathetic and in constant contact with us letting us know all he knew every step of the way. We were so blessed to find Jonathan! Giulia
Jonathan did a great job helping my family navigate through a lengthy lawsuit involving my grandmother's death in a nursing home. Through every step of the case, Jonathan kept my family informed of the progression of the case. Although our case eventually settled at a mediation, I really was impressed at how well prepared Jonathan was to take the case to trial. Lisa