## Facts

- Carl R. Grady allegedly suffered a serious esophageal tear after eating Doritos tortilla chips manufactured and sold by Frito-Lay, Inc.
- Grady reported feeling as though chips lodged in his throat and sought emergency medical care; physicians discovered an esophageal tear with serious injuries.
- The Gradys alleged the chips were defectively designed because they could fracture into sharp, hard fragments capable of lacerating the esophagus.
- The Gradys sued asserting negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty.
- To oppose summary judgment, the Gradys offered expert reports, including one from Charles Beroes, Ph.D., P.E., who conducted mechanical-strength and “wetting/softening” tests on Doritos (including chips from the bag Grady ate) and concluded the chips did not soften enough in the mouth to prevent injury.
- Frito-Lay moved to exclude Beroes’s testimony as novel scientific evidence under Frye; the trial court held a Frye hearing, found the methodology not generally accepted, excluded the testimony, and granted summary judgment due to lack of expert proof of defect and causation.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania should retain the Frye “general acceptance” test, rather than adopt a Daubert-type standard, for admissibility of novel scientific expert evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Frye by excluding Dr. Beroes’s testimony, leading to summary judgment for Frito-Lay.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania retained Frye as the governing standard for novel scientific evidence in Pennsylvania.
- The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating Beroes’s methods as novel and excluding his testimony for lack of general acceptance.
- The Court ruled the Superior Court erred by reweighing the Frye record and substituting its judgment for the trial court’s.
- Because the plaintiffs lacked admissible expert evidence of defect and causation after exclusion, summary judgment for Frito-Lay was proper.
- The Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment order.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania applies Frye to novel scientific evidence: the proponent must show the methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
- Under Frye, courts focus on the acceptance of the methodology, not the expert’s conclusions.
- Trial courts act as gatekeepers on admissibility of novel science; appellate review is for abuse of discretion and does not permit reweighing scientific disputes resolved at the Frye hearing.
- Deficiencies in methodology are not merely “weight” questions when Frye applies; without a foundational showing of general acceptance, the evidence must be excluded.
- In technically complex products-liability claims, expert testimony may be required to prove defect and medical causation; without admissible expert proof, summary judgment may be appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed Frye’s general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence, upheld the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ proffered engineering testimony as not generally accepted, and reinstated summary judgment because the remaining record lacked competent expert proof of defect and causation.


Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003)