## Facts

- Asplundh Manufacturing Division made aerial lifts used for tree-trimming; Benton Harbor Engineering supplied a hydraulic cylinder component (a rod end) incorporated into the lift.
- Jeffrey Sackerson, a City of Portland employee, died after an Asplundh lift fractured and he fell.
- Sackerson’s estate brought a wrongful-death suit against Asplundh that settled.
- Asplundh and its liability insurer, National Union, sued Benton Harbor for contribution, alleging the rod end failed from metal fatigue caused by a defective design.
- Asplundh offered opinions from Michael Jones, the City’s fleet maintenance supervisor, who had extensive equipment-maintenance experience and had disassembled and inspected the lift after the accident.
- Jones opined that the rod end failed due to metal fatigue and that the failure was attributable to design flaws, despite lacking formal training in metallurgy/metal fatigue and lacking experience designing hydraulic cylinders.
- Over objection, the district court admitted Jones’s opinions as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.
- The jury apportioned fault at 80% to Asplundh and 20% to Benton Harbor, resulting in a judgment requiring Benton Harbor to pay 20% of the settlement costs.
- Benton Harbor moved for a new trial, principally challenging admission of Jones’s testimony; the district court denied the motion. The district court also denied Asplundh/National Union’s request for prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting Jones’s technical opinions on metal-failure causation and component design as lay testimony under Rule 701, rather than requiring expert qualification and scrutiny under Rule 702.
2. Whether Asplundh and National Union were entitled to prejudgment interest on the contribution recovery.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the denial of Benton Harbor’s motion for a new trial and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred in admitting Jones’s opinions on metal fatigue and rod-end design as lay opinion under Rule 701.
- The court concluded the error was not harmless because the testimony went to central causation and defect questions.
- Because the case was remanded, the court did not reach the prejudgment-interest issue raised on cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 701 permits lay opinions only when they are rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the factfinder, often functioning as “shorthand” descriptions of observed facts.
- When a party offers “technical” lay opinions on matters such as metal-failure causation or hydraulic component design, trial courts must apply rigorous scrutiny to ensure Rule 701’s requirements are met.
- Technical lay opinion requires a demonstrated foundation of sufficient experience or specialized knowledge and a clear connection between that foundation and the opinion so it is genuinely perception-based and helpful.
- Rule 701 cannot be used to admit expert-type causation or design testimony in a way that bypasses Rule 702’s expert-qualification and reliability screening.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit ordered a new trial because the jury heard technical causation and design opinions admitted as lay testimony without an adequate foundation linking the witness’s experience to metallurgy and design engineering, effectively circumventing Rule 702’s controls on expert evidence.


Asplundh Mfg. Div. v. Benton Harbor Eng’g, 57 F.3d 1190 (3d Cir. 1995)