ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has revived a lawsuit brought by a warehouse worker who lost his leg in a forklift accident, ruling that the trial court wrongly disqualified the worker’s expert witness and prematurely dismissed the case.
Christopher Hanshaw suffered a life-altering injury in August 2016 while operating a stand-up forklift at a Kansas warehouse, according to an opinion filed April 1 in the Missouri Court of Appeals in the Western District.
According to court documents, Hanshaw’s left foot was crushed between the forklift and a metal pole after it exited the operator compartment—an incident that ultimately led to the amputation of his leg below the knee.
He sued Crown Equipment Corporation, the forklift’s manufacturer, alleging the machine was defectively designed because it lacked a rear door to prevent such an accident.
Hanshaw’s legal claims—centered on negligence, defective design, and failure to warn—were supported by a mechanical engineer with more than 15 years of experience researching forklift safety.
The expert argued that Crown’s open-sided forklift design was unreasonably dangerous and recommended that Crown either include a rear door or stop selling that particular model for warehouse use.
However, the trial court ruled in favor of Crown after excluding the expert’s testimony, concluding the expert wasn’t qualified and his opinions were unreliable.
Without expert testimony, the court granted Crown summary judgment, ending Hanshaw’s claims before a jury could hear them.
Hanshaw appealed. In a unanimous opinion by Judge Alok Ahuja, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.
The appellate court found the expert “abundantly qualified,” citing his engineering degrees, professional certifications, practical experience operating forklifts, and extensive publication record on forklift safety.
The court emphasized that the expert had studied the exact type of accident Hanshaw suffered and had conducted research specifically on the dangers of open forklift compartments.
The opinion also rejected the trial court’s demand that the expert develop and test a new forklift design to prove his point. The court clarified that product safety experts are not required to produce or test alternative designs if such designs already exist in the market.
Notably, Crown itself had previously offered rear doors on forklifts sold to other customers, including Ford Motor Company.
The court concluded that Hanshaw’s expert provided a valid opinion that should be considered by a jury, not dismissed at the pretrial stage.
“As long as an expert’s testimony rests upon good grounds, based on what is known, it should be tested by the adversary process...rather than excluded by the court at the outset,” Judge Alok Ahuja wrote in the opinion.
The appellate panel reversed both the exclusion of the expert and the summary judgment in favor of Crown, remanding the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
Judges Thomas Chapman and Douglas Thomson dissented, while all other judges on the court concurred with the opinion.
Timothy W. Monsees, Robert A. Thrasher, Andrew S. Leroy and Jose M. Bautista of Kansas City represented the appellant.
Thomas J. Cullen Jr., and Ryan M. Cullen of Nashville, Tenn; and Bradley J. Yeretsky, Bryce Langford and Anna J. Turner of Kansas City, represented the respondent.
Hanshaw’s case now returns to the trial court.