RATCLIFFE v. BRP US INC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEPHEN J. RATCLIFFE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:20-cv-00234-JAW
)
BRP U.S., INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT BRP’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
OPINIONS OF ROBERT J. NOBILINI
The 	court 	declines 	to 	bar 	the 	expert 	opinions 	of 	a 	mechanical 	and
biomechanical engineer regarding the instinctive reaction of operators of side-by-side
vehicles to extend an arm in a rollover to brace before contacting the ground, that the
warnings were insufficient to prevent this reaction, and that the safety features of
the vehicle were inadequate to prevent or minimize this risk.
I. 	BACKGROUND
With trial looming, on October 4, 2024, BRP U.S., Inc. (BRP) filed a motion in
limine to exclude the engineering opinions of Robert J. Nobilini, Ph.D., an expert
designated by Stephen J. Ratcliffe, the plaintiff. 	Def. BRP’s Mot. in Lim. No. 2 and
Supporting Br. to Exclude the Ops. of Robert J. Nobilini (ECF No. 169) (Def.’s Mot.).1
On October 15, 2024, Mr. Ratcliffe opposed the exclusion of Dr. Nobilini’s testimony.
1 	For the reasons the Court described in its order on the Plaintiff’s motion to strike, the Court
has endeavored to resolve BRP’s Rule 702 motion in the brief interval before trial, now scheduled to
begin on November 12, 2023. The Court has done its level best, but counsel should understand that
BRP’s decision to file its Rule 702 motion as a motion in limine in the runup to trial has necessarily
constrained the Court’s decision-making.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Pl. Stephen J. Ratcliffe’s Obj. to Def. BRP’s Mot. in Lim. No. 2 and Supporting Br. to
Exclude the Ops. of Robert J. Nobilini (ECF No. 191) (Pl.’s Opp’n).
II. 	OVERVIEW
Mr. Ratcliffe has brought a lawsuit against BRP, the manufacturer, and Tidd’s
Sport Shop, Inc. (Tidd’s), the dealer, of a 2019 Can-Am Maverick X3, a utility terrain
vehicle (UTV), asserting negligence and strict liability claims arising out of an
incident in which Mr. Ratcliffe’s UTV rolled onto its side and crushed his arm. The
Plaintiff is pursuing design defect and failure-to-warn theories of recovery. 	During
discovery, by report dated September 8, 2022, Mr. Ratcliffe designated Dr. Nobilini,
a professional engineer, as a Plaintiff expert. Def.’s Mot., Attach. 1, Report of Exam.
(ECF No. 169-1) (Nobilini Report). 	BRP deposed Dr. Nobilini on October 7, 2022.
Pl.’s Opp’n, Attach. 4, Dep. of Robert J. Nobilini, Ph.D. (ECF No. 191-4) (Nobilini
Dep.). Mr. Ratcliffe listed Dr. Nobilini as a witness in his pretrial memorandum. Pl.
Stephen J. Ratcliffe’s Pretrial Mem. at 7 (ECF No. 154).
In his September 8, 2022 report, Dr. Nobilini summarized his conclusions in
thirteen bullet points at the end of the report, writing:
● BRP was aware that a rollover was a foreseeable hazard of the subject
vehicle.
● Extending one’s arm in the direction that they are falling is a natural
protective response.
● It was foreseeable that occupants would instinctively extend their arm
outside the roll cage during a lateral rollover.
● 	BRP knew that occupants would instinctively extend their arms
outside of the roll cage during a lateral rollover.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
● The movement of Mr. Ratcliffe’s left arm in the direction that he was
falling (i.e. towards the ground and outside of the roll cage) was
consistent with an instinctive natural protective response.
● 	The warnings on the subject Can-Am Maverick X3 were not an
effective measure to prevent the natural response to extend one’s arm
as they fell towards the ground during a lateral rollover.
● 	Mr. Ratcliffe’s injuries were consistent with his left forearm being
crushed between the driver’s side rail of the ROPS[2] and the ground
during the subject rollover event.
● The lack of dust and scratches in the middle of the left lateral rail of
the roll cage was consistent with Mr. Ratcliffe’s left arm pinned between
this portion of the roll cage and the ground.
● BRP knew or should have known that if an occupant’s arm moved
outside the roll cage during a lateral rollover, their arm could be
crushed by the roll cage or the frame of the vehicle.
● The opening between the top of the door and the lateral rail of the
roll cage allowed for an occupant’s arm to move outside the roll cage
and into harm’s way.
● 	The lack of an adequate restraint system to prevent an occupant’s
arm from moving outside the roll cage during a lateral rollover made
the subject vehicle unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.
● The subject Can-Am Maverick X3 vehicle was designed and sold in a
defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to users including Mr.
Ratcliffe.
● The defective design of the subject vehicle was a substantial
contributing factor to Mr. Ratcliff’s injuries.
Nobilini Report at 18-19.
2 	ROPS refers to rollover protection structure. See Rollover protection structure, WIKIPEDIA
(last accessed Nov. 3, 2024), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover_protection_structure.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. 	BRP’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Nobilini
BRP seeks to exclude Dr. Nobilini’s expert opinions on the ground that they
violate the constraints of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the caselaw implementing
Daubert3 and Kumho4. 	Def.’s Mot. at 1-10. 	Of Dr. Nobilini’s thirteen discrete
opinions, 	BRP 	specifically 	focuses 	on 	his 	conclusions 	that 	“(i) 	humans—like
Plaintiff—have a natural protective response to extend one’s hand/arm during a UTV
rollover; (ii) BRP’s warnings were inadequate or ineffective to prevent the natural
protective response; and (iii) the lack of an adequate restraint system to prevent the
occupant’s arm from leaving the roll cage during a rollover made the Subject Vehicle
unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.” Id. at 10.
BRP avers that “at its core, all of Nobilini’s opinions flow from one untested
and demonstrably false premise—that belted and restrained vehicle occupants
instinctively reach out in rollovers.” 	Id. at 5. 	BRP points out that Dr. Nobilini has
“never done a scientific study of this question” and asserts that his opinion “runs
counter to published literature directly on point.” Id. (citing id., Attach. 5, Newberry,
W., Carhart, M., Larson, R., Bridges, A. et al., Biomechanics of Occupant Responses
during Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) Riding and 90-degree Tip-overs, SAE
I NT . J. P ASSENG. CARS – MECH . SYST . 5(1) (2012) (ECF No. 169-5) (Newberry Study).
BRP rejects Dr. Nobilini’s analogy to the response in a trip-and-fall and describes the
analogy as a “classic apples to oranges comparison.” Id.
3 	Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
4 	Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Turning first to Dr. Nobilini’s opinion about the “natural protective response”
in a rollover, BRP notes that Dr. Nobilini reaches this conclusion based on five
research studies and his own personal experience but emphasizes that none of these
cited studies involved “the kinematics of a belted occupant in a UTV rollover.” Id. at
6. 	Instead, all involve “falls from a standing position after a loss of balance.” 	Id.
(emphasis in original). 	Further, BRP observes that Dr. Nobilini failed to perform
tests to validate his opinion, which it views as fatal to his expert opinion under Rule
702. Id.
Next, BRP objects to Dr. Nobilini’s opinions about the inadequacy of BRP’s
warnings, claiming his testimony is cumulative of the opinion of David Lenorovitz,
Ph.D., a human factors engineer who Mr. Ratcliffe has also listed as an expert. 	Id.
(citing id, Attach. 4., Ratcliffe Human Factors Eng’g Analysis Report (ECF No. 169-
4) (Lenorovitz Report)). 	Citing portions of Dr. Lenorovitz’s report, BRP urges the
Court to exclude Dr. Nobilini’s opinion as “redundant.” Id. at 7-8.
Third, BRP asks the Court to exclude Dr. Nobilini’s opinion that the Maverick
X3’s warnings are inadequate because the opinion is not “the product of a reliable
methodology.” 	Id. at 8. 	BRP says that his warnings opinion is premised upon his
“unreliable and untested assumption of the ‘natural protective response,’” and
therefore should be excluded. Id. at 8. Next, BRP argues that Dr. Nobilini failed to
conduct, review, or cite “any consumer surveys or user studies,” nor any “quantitative
data or peer reviewed research on whether . . . side-by-side occupants follow
instructions,” and as such his opinions are “grounded on nothing.” Id. Indeed, BRP
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
writes that “all Nobilini does is read the warnings and conclude they are inadequate,”
an opinion based on his own “say so.” Id.
Fourth, BRP argues that Dr. Nobilini’s opinion about the inadequacy of the
vehicle’s restraint system should be excluded because, again, this opinion is premised
on his erroneous “natural protective response” theory. Id. at 9. BRP says that even
if his natural protective response theory is accepted as admissible, Dr. Nobilini’s
opinion about the adequacy of the restraint system must be excluded because he did
not conduct any testing to evaluate the reliability of his opinion on the adequacy of
the UTV’s restraint system. Id.
Finally, 	BRP 	urges 	the 	Court 	to 	exclude 	Dr. 	Nobilini’s 	opinions 	as
contradictory to his opinions in another case involving a competitor’s UTV, the
Polaris RZR, in which Dr. Nobilini opined the vehicle’s “half net” restraint was
defective and unreasonably dangerous. Id. at 10.
B. 	Stephen J. Ratcliffe’s Opposition
Mr. Ratcliffe disagrees. 	Pl.’s Opp’n at 1-11. In response, Mr. Ratcliffe points
out that the customer warnings BRP includes with the Maverick X3 are replete with
cautions to users to keep their arms inside, hold onto the steering wheel, and brace
themselves during a rollover. Pl.’s Opp’n at 4-5. Mr. Ratcliffe then concentrates on
the proposed testimony of Steven Hall, a BRP expert, and William Newberry, another
BRP expert. 	Pl.’s Opp’n at 5-8; see Final Pretrial Mem. of BRP US Inc. at 11 (ECF
No. 155). 	Each BRP expert, he asserts, relies on the same methodology that forms
the basis of Dr. Nobilini’s opinions, including a review of academic literature on the
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
biomechanics of falls. Pl.’s Opp’n at 5-8. After describing the information and studies
upon which Dr. Nobilini relied in expressing his opinions, Mr. Ratcliffe points out
that, in the Newberry study relied upon by Defendant’s experts, “[v]olunteers for the
Yamaha-funded study knew in advance that the vehicle would be doing a 17-second
quasistatic 90-degree rollover, so these were not natural responses to unplanned real-
world rollovers.” 	Id. at 8-9 (citing Newberry Study at 89, 108). 	As regards the
allegedly cumulative nature of Dr. Nobilini’s proposed testimony, Mr. Ratcliffe
acknowledges his obligation not to present cumulative testimony but argues a ruling
precluding evidence at this stage would be premature and urges the Court to reserve
ruling until trial. 	Id. at 9. 	Mr. Ratcliffe justifies Dr. Nobilini’s opinion testimony
about the inadequacy of BRP’s warnings, averring that Dr. Nobilini’s report cites
academic literature, his review of videos of UTV rollovers, and safety videos from
BRP’s competitors in the UTV manufacturing business. Id. at 10-11 (citing Nobilini
Report at 15). 	Finally, Mr. Ratcliffe contests BRP’s challenge to Dr. Nobilini’s
opinions about the inadequacy of the Maverick X3’s side rollover protection, noting
that BRP’s critique merely recycles its objection to Dr. Nobilini’s natural protective
response opinions. Id. at 11.
IV. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
The admissibility of expert testimony is a question of law governed by Federal
Rule of Evidence 702 and by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert and its
progeny. Rule 702 provides:
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise
if:
(a) the 	expert's 	scientific, 	technical, 	or 	otherwise 	specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
F ED. R. EVID. 702.
The 	First 	Circuit 	has 	“long 	entrusted federal 	trial 	judges 	to 	be 	‘gate-
keeper[s],’ empowered by Rule 702 and Daubert to ‘ensure that an expert's testimony
“both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.”’” 	United
States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 261 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597).
“[T]he overarching concern is on the ‘evidentiary relevance and reliability’ of the
proposed testimony,” with speculative expert testimony often satisfying neither
criterion. 	Seahorse Marine Supplies, Inc. v. P.R. Sun Oil Co., 295 F.3d 68, 81 (1st
Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595); see also Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor
Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 22 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Admission of expert testimony based on
speculative assumptions is an abuse of discretion”).
In general, “[e]xpert testimony is admissible if ‘scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue’ and if the proposed witness is qualified as an expert by some
specialized ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’” 	Liberty Mut. Ins.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Co. v. Broan-NuTone LLC, No. 21-cv-11986-DLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76408, at
*5-6 (D. Mass. Apr. 26, 2024) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588).
Mr. Ratcliffe and BRP have both referred to the 2023 amendments to Federal
Rule of Evidence 702.5 	The advisory committee on evidence rules explained the
purpose of the amendment: “[f]irst, the rule has been amended to clarify and
emphasize 	that 	expert 	testimony 	may 	not 	be 	admitted 	unless 	the 	proponent
demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony
meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.” 	F ED. R. EVID. 702
advisory committee’s note to 2023 amendment. The committee cited Federal Rule of
Evidence 104(a) to explain “[t]his is the preponderance of the evidence standard that
applies to most of the admissibility requirements set forth in the evidence rules.” Id.
(citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987)). 	Id. 	“Rule 702(d) has also
been amended to emphasize that each expert opinion must stay within the bounds of
what 	can 	be 	concluded 	from 	a 	reliable 	application 	of 	the 	expert’s 	basis 	and
methodology.” 	Id. 	The committee concluded that “[n]othing in the amendment
imposes any new, specific procedures. Rather, the amendment is simply intended to
5 	In 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended as follows:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court
that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
FED. R. E VID. 702, 2023 amends.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
clarify that Rule 104(a)’s requirement applies to expert opinions under Rule 702.”
Id.
V. 	DISCUSSION
First, although BRP criticizes Dr. Nobilini’s opinions in this case, it has wisely
not questioned his expert qualifications as a professional engineer. 	Dr. Nobilini is
well-qualified as a mechanical engineer with a concentration in biomechanics. 	See
Nobilini Report at 33-36.
BRP’s motion includes many catchphrases for expert disqualification. 	Def.’s
Mot. at 1-9 (“unreliable and unscientific opinion testimony,” “no presumption of
admissibility,” “untested and demonstrably false,” “inapplicable research studies and
misleading, irrelevant and anecdotal videos, rather than testing or literature”).
However, when analyzed, the crux of its argument against Dr. Nobilini’s testimony
is that it is unreliable because he failed to test his opinions about alternative designs.
Id. at 6 (“One of the benchmarks for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony is
whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested”).
In reviewing the foundation for Dr. Nobilini’s opinion, the Court finds BRP
correct in its assertion that Dr. Nobilini does not refer to any studies that corroborate
his view that a person would naturally extend an arm to break a fall specifically
during a UTV rollover. Nevertheless, the Court does not view Dr. Nobilini’s proposed
testimony as his own ipse dixit. Instead, Dr. Nobilini based his biomechanical opinion
on three studies of the biomechanics of what people typically do when they are falling
from a standing position. See Nobilini Report at 15 (citing articles at footnotes 2-5).
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
Further, Dr. Nobilini viewed twenty-six YouTube videos in which the occupants put
their arms out in all-terrain vehicle rollovers and a safety video by Polaris Industries,
a BRP competitor, in which the Polaris representative confirmed that “[s]ometimes
the natural response is to put your hand out, like you’re falling.” 	Id. 	Dr. Nobilini
also reviewed after-market products, including arm and wrist restraints, designed to
restrain users of such vehicles from extending their arms outside the roll cage in the
event of a rollover. 	Id. at 15-17. 	Dr. Nobilini further included as the basis for his
opinion 	a 	BRP-produced 	YouTube 	video 	concerning 	the 	Can-Am 	Off-Road
Commander, a different UTV model manufactured by BRP, in which the presenter
described the advantage of that vehicle’s safety nets and noted that the “reason for
the safety net” is “so you don’t stick any arms out in case of an accident.” 	Id. at 17.
Dr. Nobilini’s report also referenced BRP documents which describe the advantages
of the optional safety net for the UTV in which BRP acknowledged that the “net can
hold passenger body parts during roll over.” Id.
Finally, Dr. Nobilini considered Mr. Ratcliffe’s personal testimony:
When - - when your body is falling, right, it’s almost an involuntary
reaction for you to want to brace yourself, right? 	And you know,
someone could instruct me a thousand times over, and I think knowing
my body and my reflexes, I would instinctually want to brace myself
from falling when I feel my body falling.
Pl.’s Opp’n, Attach. 2, Dep. of Stephen J. Ratcliffe at 46:2-8 (ECF No. 191-2). 	Mr.
Ratcliffe further testified that “I just know I felt my body falling and my arm went
out.” Id. at 46:22-23.
Based on the limited information before it, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficient foundation for Dr. Nobilini’s opinions. 	Dr.
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Nobilini has presented a reliable basis for his conclusions that Mr. Ratcliffe’s rollover
accident 	was 	analogous 	to 	a 	fall, 	and, 	according 	to 	academic 	studies 	of 	the
biomechanical response to falling, that a person’s natural response is to extend his or
her arm to break a fall. 	Further, based on cumulative evidence, Dr. Nobilini
articulates a reasonable basis for his opinions that the UTV industry generally was
aware of the risk presented by this natural human response, that BRP specifically
was aware of this risk, and that the UTV industry had developed safety features to
mitigate this risk.
In sum, the Court rejects BRP’s Rule 702 and Daubert/Kumho challenge to the
expert testimony of Dr. Robert J. Nobilini as the Plaintiff’s biomechanical engineering
expert. 	The Court has concluded that Dr. Nobilini’s proposed testimony meets the
requisite “threshold of reliability,” and therefore it “should be presented to a jury and
‘tested by the adversary process—[by] competing expert testimony and active cross
examination.’” United States v. Santana-Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199196, at
*5 (D. Me. Nov. 2, 2022) (quoting Vargas, 471. F.3d at 265); see also Daubert, 509 U.S.
at 596 (“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful
instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of
attacking shaky but admissible evidence”). In doing so, the Court has considered the
2023 	amendments 	to 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 702 and makes 	this determination in
accordance with the requirements of Rule 104(a).
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
VI. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Defendant BRP’s Motion in Limine
No. 2 and Supporting Brief to Exclude the Opinions of Robert J. Nobilini (ECF No.
169).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of November, 2024
Case 1:20-cv-00234-JAW Document 256 Filed 11/05/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>