Plaintiff candidly admitted that he required the testimony of both experts to prove his case. One expert, Steven D. Haubert, would opine that a manufacturing defect in the internal wire braiding of the hose caused it to curl up under pressure. The second expert, Dennis L. Heninger, would opine that the hose would pinch in a gap in the mower. Taken together, the two defects would build up pressure within the mower which caused it to explode.

Mr. Haubert was an engineering manager for a window company. He testified that the hose manufacturing defect is called “tight carrier” and caused the hose to curl up under pressure. He explained that his previous experience working for hose manufacturers qualified him as an expert. He testified that there were three possible tests that would reveal whether tight carrier defects existed, however, he did not perform any of the three tests.

The second expert testified as to the hydraulic system of the mower. He admitted during trial that his experience with hydraulic systems was limited to the mining industry. He was not an expert in hydraulic systems of this particular type of lawn mower or agricultural equipment in general.

The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,750,000. Defendant appealed and once again challenged the admissibility of both experts’ testimony.

The Supreme Court of Virginia explained that expert testimony must be based on an adequate foundation. This includes evaluating the expert’s own experience relating to the subject matter upon which he is testifying. For instance, Mr. Heninger admitted that he was not an expert in hydraulic systems of mowers and had no experience in the design or manufacture of agricultural equipment. Simply because he is an expert in the field of hydraulic systems of another nature does not qualify him as a hydraulics expert in general. He could not testify as to the hydraulics on the mower at issue in this case. Also, the Court found that the testimony offered by Mr. Haubert was likewise based on an inadequate foundation. He did not perform any of the tests he identified during his testimony. Therefore, his opinions of manufacturing defect were not adequately supported by the facts.

Thus, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the admission of the expert testimony was reversible error. Accordingly, the matter was reversed and remanded for a full trial on the merits.