GRT UTILICORP POST DRIVER

Therefore, the motion as it applies to Dr. My opinions are based on my experience, education, and training. Nothing is this ruling prohibits the defendants from making contemporaneous objections at trial concerning the lack of a factual basis for the opinions of either expert. However, this Court recognizes that it is conceivable that the methodology is contained within the report and yet is not apparent. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, the Court will not exclude the opinions contained in the supplemental report on this basis. Apparently recognizing the lack of objective support for his findings, Long emphasized his own "education and experience," urging that "[c]ontrary to some thinking, standards related to safety do not always have to be adopted by some official agency in order to exist. The Court notes that "[t]he adequacy of a warning is a factual issue which the jury can handle without expert help from either side.

Uploader:	Mezit
Date Added:	10 November 2016
File Size:	39.75 Mb
Operating Systems:	Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads:	57317
Price:	Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

If you are in need of a new or used post driver or pressure digger, or service, repair, or need parts for a post driver or pressure digger, be sure to contact us!

Singhose testified regarding the engineering principles he followed to arrive at his conclusion and provided the support for those principles from other texts. After multiple attempts to get the post out of the ground, Alexander told Francis to go get some chains out of the truck so that they could finish the job.

In point of fact, much of Dr. Cunitz will not be permitted to testify at the trial of this matter as to uhilicorp of his opinions as set forth herein. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, the Court will not exclude the opinions contained in the supplemental report on this basis.

This judgement has not been utllicorp yet. Cunitz stated in his initial report: In the recent decision of Brown v. Therefore, a factual question for resolution by the jury is whether these warnings were "adequate," and the plaintiff offers Dr.

Currently pending before the Court is a motion gtt exclude the testimony at trial of the plaintiff's engineering expert, Dr. Whitehouse, testified that the adaptor cap was one of two critical safety component parts of the machine and if these two parts were not used during the operation of the post driver, then the post driver lacked a safety device that would prevent a post from being ejected. Congratulations to our painter Russell Nommay for painting his th machine! DP's expert concluded that if GRT reverse engineered an adaptor cap that was consistent with DP's design, as GRT contends, then that adaptor cap was not on the post driver when it was inspected after the accident occurred.

A hearing was held at which Dr. He also testified that, in the post driver industry, these caps were fabricated by third parties described as "mom and pop welding shops" on a "frequent basis" as they would wear out from the repetitive impacts.

Email or Phone Password Forgot account? Stop by and say hello and see what we can offer you for your post driving and drilling needs!

His experience includes the mechanical design of components for heavy machinery and systems that manufacture heavy machines. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you! Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous due to an inadequate warning is a question for the trier of fact. Cunitz testified that he had a personal medical issue which delayed the production of the supplemental report.

However, this Court recognizes that it is conceivable that the methodology is contained within the report and yet is not apparent. Therefore, the motion as it applies to Dr. My opinions were formed after applying the methodologies and criteria previously described.

GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | Construction Equipment

Stop by to see us if you're attending the show! Cunitz on the information contained in his supplemental report. The fourth and sixth opinions deal with the warnings in this case and the superior positions of knowledge held by manufacturers over end users regarding the hazard of a product which would necessitate warnings.

Further, the methods of engineering analysis applied by Dr. utioicorp

GRT Utilicorp, Inc.

A machine developed with no overhang on utilucorp non-working side of the machine in order to drive posts where space is tight or lane closures are difficult. He also opined that the machine's warning to uhilicorp at least ten feet away was confusing and meaningless, and therefore inadequate, because it is necessary for a worker to be near the machine at certain points in the post driving process.

Cunitz, the plaintiffs also contend that the post driver was unreasonably dangerous because there was no warning that a beam could be ejected from the machine; because there was no warning that the adaptor cap and foot adaptor, which are critical safety features, should have been replaced only with parts manufactured by DP, the original equipment manufacturer; and because the warning that was given - cautioning that a person should not stay within ten feet of the machine while it was in use - was inadequate.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. Cunitz holds a Ph.

Cunitz to opine that they were not.