Loading
Manufacturing
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Product Liability, Design Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Workplace Safety
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Third Circuit
The published summary judgment decision in Cote v. U.S. Silica Co., 572 F. Supp. 3d 84 (M.D. Pa. 2021), traces back to a February 27, 2016 workplace incident at a frac sand transfer yard in Wysox, Pennsylvania. Dayton Cote was attempting to clear wet or clumped frac sand from a railcar’s bottom discharge opening when a coworker operated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic gate-control system. The railcar gate closed while Cote’s hand remained inside the opening and nearly severed it.
Cote initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica Company, and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The Eastern District later transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. His claims concerned the design and distribution of the TLX36 transloader, the condition of the frac sand, the operation of the hydraulic gate system, and the conduct of the companies involved in supplying and transporting the material. Following dismissal proceedings, summary judgment motions, Rule 702 challenges, settlements, and amended pleadings, the litigation narrowed to a Pennsylvania strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries.
Cote was working for Shale Rail during a railcar unloading operation at a frac sand transfer yard. Wet or clumped material had stopped flowing through the railcar’s bottom outlet, and he reached into the discharge opening to loosen it. A coworker then operated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic controls without realizing that Cote’s hand remained inside the railcar. The gate closed and caused a severe injury to his hand.
Cote filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica Company, and Norfolk Southern Corporation. He asserted negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell and FB Industries based on the TLX36 transloader. His negligence claims against U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern concerned their alleged roles in supplying and transporting the frac sand. The parties later disputed the source of moisture in the sand, the condition of the unloading equipment, and each defendant’s connection to the accident.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted U.S. Silica’s motion to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The action continued under a new docket number before Judge Matthew W. Brann. The principal dismissal, summary judgment, expert-evidence, and pretrial rulings were later issued in the Middle District.
The Middle District declined to dismiss Cote’s negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell Industries. It found a sufficient basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over Schnell and concluded that Cote had adequately pleaded his product-related claims. The court dismissed indemnification crossclaims brought against Schnell by U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern because any liability imposed on those companies would arise from their own alleged negligence. The ruling permitted the principal claims against Schnell to proceed into discovery.
Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann denied four summary judgment motions involving Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica, and Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern’s motion concerned U.S. Silica’s contribution crossclaim rather than a direct claim brought by Cote. The court found genuine factual disputes involving the alleged transloader defects, causation, the source of the sand’s moisture, and the parties’ respective roles in the accident.
The competing moisture theories included conditions during loading, possible railcar leakage, condensation, and events during transportation. The court did not decide that the TLX36 was defective or that any defendant was liable. Instead, the ruling left the disputed claims and crossclaim for further proceedings.
Schnell Industries and FB Industries sought to exclude opinions offered by Michael Tarkanian, an engineering expert retained by Cote. Tarkanian analyzed the hydraulic controls, a proposed device for isolating the hydraulic circuit that operated the railcar gate, the placement of operating controls, electrical circuitry, and language in the TLX36 equipment manual.
The court admitted most of his opinions after finding that he was qualified and that his analysis was sufficiently connected to the disputed accident mechanism. It excluded his opinions that the dust collector obstructed the operator’s line of sight and that the angle or placement of the stairs and catwalk contributed to the accident. The decision permitted the jury to consider his remaining opinions, but it did not establish that the transloader was defective or that his proposed design was legally required.
By the time of the court’s November 8, 2022 ruling, Cote had settled his claims against U.S. Silica Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and FB Industries. He had also withdrawn his negligence claim against Schnell Industries, leaving a strict products liability claim against the transloader manufacturer.
The court barred evidence offered merely to establish Cote’s ordinary negligence because Schnell could not show that his conduct was the sole cause of the accident and entirely unrelated to an alleged product defect. It also held that assumption of risk was unavailable on the record because Cote was required to use equipment furnished for his employment. Product misuse and highly reckless conduct defenses were excluded because the evidence did not support treating his actions as the sole cause of the accident, independent of any alleged defect.
Schnell was also precluded from using alleged negligence by U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern as a comparative-fault defense to excuse the transloader’s alleged defects or reduce Cote’s recovery. The court nevertheless allowed Schnell to present its competing expert opinion that removing the TLX36 ignition key could function as an energy-isolation or lockout measure. That disagreement remained available for competing testimony and cross-examination.
Court:
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Case Name:
Cote v. U.S. Silica Co.
Machine Design
Machine Guarding
Hydraulics
Machine Safety
Workplace Accidents
Railroad Safety
Railroad Operations
Safety Engineering
Product Safety
The published summary judgment decision in Cote v. U.S. Silica Co., 572 F. Supp. 3d 84 (M.D. Pa. 2021), traces back to a February 27, 2016 workplace incident at a frac sand transfer yard in Wysox, Pennsylvania. Dayton Cote was attempting to clear wet or clumped frac sand from a railcar’s bottom discharge opening when a coworker operated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic gate-control system. The railcar gate closed while Cote’s hand remained inside the opening and nearly severed it.
Cote initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica Company, and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The Eastern District later transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. His claims concerned the design and distribution of the TLX36 transloader, the condition of the frac sand, the operation of the hydraulic gate system, and the conduct of the companies involved in supplying and transporting the material. Following dismissal proceedings, summary judgment motions, Rule 702 challenges, settlements, and amended pleadings, the litigation narrowed to a Pennsylvania strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries.
Cote was working for Shale Rail during a railcar unloading operation at a frac sand transfer yard. Wet or clumped material had stopped flowing through the railcar’s bottom outlet, and he reached into the discharge opening to loosen it. A coworker then operated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic controls without realizing that Cote’s hand remained inside the railcar. The gate closed and caused a severe injury to his hand.
Cote filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica Company, and Norfolk Southern Corporation. He asserted negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell and FB Industries based on the TLX36 transloader. His negligence claims against U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern concerned their alleged roles in supplying and transporting the frac sand. The parties later disputed the source of moisture in the sand, the condition of the unloading equipment, and each defendant’s connection to the accident.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted U.S. Silica’s motion to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The action continued under a new docket number before Judge Matthew W. Brann. The principal dismissal, summary judgment, expert-evidence, and pretrial rulings were later issued in the Middle District.
The Middle District declined to dismiss Cote’s negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell Industries. It found a sufficient basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over Schnell and concluded that Cote had adequately pleaded his product-related claims. The court dismissed indemnification crossclaims brought against Schnell by U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern because any liability imposed on those companies would arise from their own alleged negligence. The ruling permitted the principal claims against Schnell to proceed into discovery.
Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann denied four summary judgment motions involving Schnell Industries, FB Industries, U.S. Silica, and Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern’s motion concerned U.S. Silica’s contribution crossclaim rather than a direct claim brought by Cote. The court found genuine factual disputes involving the alleged transloader defects, causation, the source of the sand’s moisture, and the parties’ respective roles in the accident.
The competing moisture theories included conditions during loading, possible railcar leakage, condensation, and events during transportation. The court did not decide that the TLX36 was defective or that any defendant was liable. Instead, the ruling left the disputed claims and crossclaim for further proceedings.
Schnell Industries and FB Industries sought to exclude opinions offered by Michael Tarkanian, an engineering expert retained by Cote. Tarkanian analyzed the hydraulic controls, a proposed device for isolating the hydraulic circuit that operated the railcar gate, the placement of operating controls, electrical circuitry, and language in the TLX36 equipment manual.
The court admitted most of his opinions after finding that he was qualified and that his analysis was sufficiently connected to the disputed accident mechanism. It excluded his opinions that the dust collector obstructed the operator’s line of sight and that the angle or placement of the stairs and catwalk contributed to the accident. The decision permitted the jury to consider his remaining opinions, but it did not establish that the transloader was defective or that his proposed design was legally required.
By the time of the court’s November 8, 2022 ruling, Cote had settled his claims against U.S. Silica Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and FB Industries. He had also withdrawn his negligence claim against Schnell Industries, leaving a strict products liability claim against the transloader manufacturer.
The court barred evidence offered merely to establish Cote’s ordinary negligence because Schnell could not show that his conduct was the sole cause of the accident and entirely unrelated to an alleged product defect. It also held that assumption of risk was unavailable on the record because Cote was required to use equipment furnished for his employment. Product misuse and highly reckless conduct defenses were excluded because the evidence did not support treating his actions as the sole cause of the accident, independent of any alleged defect.
Schnell was also precluded from using alleged negligence by U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern as a comparative-fault defense to excuse the transloader’s alleged defects or reduce Cote’s recovery. The court nevertheless allowed Schnell to present its competing expert opinion that removing the TLX36 ignition key could function as an energy-isolation or lockout measure. That disagreement remained available for competing testimony and cross-examination.
Design Engineering and Materials Science Expert Witness
Plaintiff: Michael Tarkanian evaluated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic controls, electrical circuitry, operating instructions, and a proposed method for isolating the hydraulic gate circuit. He offered these opinions on behalf of Dayton Cote.
Defense, Schnell Industries: Albert de Richemond presented competing engineering opinions concerning the TLX36 transloader and the proposed design alternatives.
Frac Sand and Bulk Material Expert Witness
Plaintiff: Thomas Eagar addressed sand-loading temperatures, condensation, and possible moisture conditions on behalf of Cote.
Defense, U.S. Silica: Michael Wick examined frac-sand production, shipment, railcar conditions, and competing explanations for moisture in the material.
Vocational and Economic Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Steven D. Shedlin was identified in connection with vocational issues, including employment limitations and reduced earning capacity.
David L. Hopkins addressed economic damages associated with Cote’s claimed financial losses.
Industrial Engineering Expert Witnesses
Industrial engineering experts may evaluate machine operation, work processes, hazardous-energy control methods, and whether alternative engineering designs can be integrated into industrial operations. The published opinions reviewed for this article do not identify a separately retained industrial engineering expert for either party.
Human Factors Expert Witness
Human factors analysis may address control placement, operator visibility, warning language, and the interaction between workers and machinery. Although some of Tarkanian’s opinions addressed control placement and visibility, the available opinions do not identify a separately designated human factors expert for either party.
The Litigation Involved Different Liability Theories Against Different Defendants
Cote pursued negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell and FB Industries based on their alleged connections to the TLX36 transloader. His claims against U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern focused on their alleged conduct in supplying and transporting the frac sand. The distinction affected the defenses, crossclaims, and evidence available against each party.
The Alternative-Design Dispute Centered on Hydraulic Energy Isolation
Cote’s engineering evidence included a proposed mechanism that would isolate the hydraulic circuit controlling the railcar gate while allowing other parts of the transloader to remain operational. Schnell disputed the design proposal and offered evidence that removal of the machine’s ignition key could serve as an energy-isolation measure. The court allowed both sides to present their remaining opinions without deciding which theory was correct.
Rule 702 Review Applied Separately to Each Engineering Opinion
The court did not admit or exclude Tarkanian’s testimony as a single unit. It admitted his hydraulic-control, circuitry, manual, and proposed-isolation opinions while excluding his dust-collector visibility and stairs-and-catwalk theories. The ruling shows that expert admissibility depends on the qualifications, methods, factual basis, and relevance of each opinion rather than the witness’s testimony as a whole.
The Court Limited Evidence of Cote’s Conduct Under Pennsylvania Products Liability Law
The November 2022 pretrial ruling distinguished ordinary negligence from evidence that could support sole causation, assumption of risk, product misuse, or highly reckless conduct. Based on the record before it, the court barred those defenses because Schnell could not establish that Cote’s actions were entirely independent of the alleged product defect. It also prevented Schnell from using comparative-fault principles based on the conduct of settling defendants to reduce liability on the remaining strict products liability claim.
Settlements Narrowed the Case Without Resolving the Remaining Claim
Cote’s settlements with U.S. Silica, Norfolk Southern, and FB Industries removed those defendants from the litigation. The settlements did not resolve the strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries. By November 2022, that claim remained positioned for further proceedings.
The litigation began with a 2016 railcar unloading accident involving an interruption in frac sand flow and the operation of a hydraulic gate system. It later developed into disputes over the TLX36 transloader’s design, the source of moisture in the sand, a proposed hydraulic-isolation device, and the admissibility of competing engineering opinions. The court denied the summary judgment motions, admitted most of Michael Tarkanian’s analysis, and allowed Schnell to present its competing ignition-key theory.
By the November 8, 2022 pretrial ruling, settlements had removed U.S. Silica, Norfolk Southern, and FB Industries from the case. The remaining claim concerned whether Schnell Industries sold a defectively designed transloader and whether an alleged defect caused Cote’s hand injury. The judicial opinions cited in this article do not disclose the final disposition of that claim. Any statement about a later verdict, settlement, dismissal, or other resolution should be based on a review of the complete federal docket through a stated access date.
What Happened During the Railcar Unloading Accident?
Dayton Cote reached into a railcar’s bottom discharge opening to loosen wet or clumped frac sand. A coworker operated the TLX36 hydraulic controls, causing the railcar gate to close while Cote’s hand remained inside.
Where Did the Accident Occur?
The accident occurred at a frac sand transfer yard in Wysox, Pennsylvania. Workers at the facility transferred sand from railcars into trucks.
What Was the TLX36 Transloader?
The TLX36 was industrial equipment used during the railcar unloading process. Schnell Industries designed and manufactured the machine, while FB Industries served as Schnell’s exclusive North American distributor and sold the unit to Northeast Freight Transfer. Cote worked for Shale Rail, a subsidiary of Northeast Freight Transfer.
What Defect Did Cote Allege?
Cote alleged that the TLX36 lacked a dedicated mechanism for isolating the hydraulic circuit controlling the railcar gate while allowing other parts of the machine to continue operating. His engineering evidence also addressed control placement, electrical circuitry, operating instructions, and a line-of-sight theory that the court excluded.
Did the Court Decide That the TLX36 Was Defective?
No. The summary judgment and Rule 702 rulings allowed the remaining design-defect dispute and competing engineering opinions to proceed. They did not establish that the TLX36 was defective or that Schnell was liable.
Which Defendants Settled With Cote?
Cote settled his claims against U.S. Silica Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and FB Industries. As of the November 8, 2022 pretrial ruling, a strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries remained.
Design Engineering and Materials Science Expert Witness
Plaintiff: Michael Tarkanian evaluated the TLX36 transloader’s hydraulic controls, electrical circuitry, operating instructions, and a proposed method for isolating the hydraulic gate circuit. He offered these opinions on behalf of Dayton Cote.
Defense, Schnell Industries: Albert de Richemond presented competing engineering opinions concerning the TLX36 transloader and the proposed design alternatives.
Frac Sand and Bulk Material Expert Witness
Plaintiff: Thomas Eagar addressed sand-loading temperatures, condensation, and possible moisture conditions on behalf of Cote.
Defense, U.S. Silica: Michael Wick examined frac-sand production, shipment, railcar conditions, and competing explanations for moisture in the material.
Vocational and Economic Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Steven D. Shedlin was identified in connection with vocational issues, including employment limitations and reduced earning capacity.
David L. Hopkins addressed economic damages associated with Cote’s claimed financial losses.
Industrial Engineering Expert Witnesses
Industrial engineering experts may evaluate machine operation, work processes, hazardous-energy control methods, and whether alternative engineering designs can be integrated into industrial operations. The published opinions reviewed for this article do not identify a separately retained industrial engineering expert for either party.
Human Factors Expert Witness
Human factors analysis may address control placement, operator visibility, warning language, and the interaction between workers and machinery. Although some of Tarkanian’s opinions addressed control placement and visibility, the available opinions do not identify a separately designated human factors expert for either party.
The Litigation Involved Different Liability Theories Against Different Defendants
Cote pursued negligence and strict products liability claims against Schnell and FB Industries based on their alleged connections to the TLX36 transloader. His claims against U.S. Silica and Norfolk Southern focused on their alleged conduct in supplying and transporting the frac sand. The distinction affected the defenses, crossclaims, and evidence available against each party.
The Alternative-Design Dispute Centered on Hydraulic Energy Isolation
Cote’s engineering evidence included a proposed mechanism that would isolate the hydraulic circuit controlling the railcar gate while allowing other parts of the transloader to remain operational. Schnell disputed the design proposal and offered evidence that removal of the machine’s ignition key could serve as an energy-isolation measure. The court allowed both sides to present their remaining opinions without deciding which theory was correct.
Rule 702 Review Applied Separately to Each Engineering Opinion
The court did not admit or exclude Tarkanian’s testimony as a single unit. It admitted his hydraulic-control, circuitry, manual, and proposed-isolation opinions while excluding his dust-collector visibility and stairs-and-catwalk theories. The ruling shows that expert admissibility depends on the qualifications, methods, factual basis, and relevance of each opinion rather than the witness’s testimony as a whole.
The Court Limited Evidence of Cote’s Conduct Under Pennsylvania Products Liability Law
The November 2022 pretrial ruling distinguished ordinary negligence from evidence that could support sole causation, assumption of risk, product misuse, or highly reckless conduct. Based on the record before it, the court barred those defenses because Schnell could not establish that Cote’s actions were entirely independent of the alleged product defect. It also prevented Schnell from using comparative-fault principles based on the conduct of settling defendants to reduce liability on the remaining strict products liability claim.
Settlements Narrowed the Case Without Resolving the Remaining Claim
Cote’s settlements with U.S. Silica, Norfolk Southern, and FB Industries removed those defendants from the litigation. The settlements did not resolve the strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries. By November 2022, that claim remained positioned for further proceedings.
The litigation began with a 2016 railcar unloading accident involving an interruption in frac sand flow and the operation of a hydraulic gate system. It later developed into disputes over the TLX36 transloader’s design, the source of moisture in the sand, a proposed hydraulic-isolation device, and the admissibility of competing engineering opinions. The court denied the summary judgment motions, admitted most of Michael Tarkanian’s analysis, and allowed Schnell to present its competing ignition-key theory.
By the November 8, 2022 pretrial ruling, settlements had removed U.S. Silica, Norfolk Southern, and FB Industries from the case. The remaining claim concerned whether Schnell Industries sold a defectively designed transloader and whether an alleged defect caused Cote’s hand injury. The judicial opinions cited in this article do not disclose the final disposition of that claim. Any statement about a later verdict, settlement, dismissal, or other resolution should be based on a review of the complete federal docket through a stated access date.
What Happened During the Railcar Unloading Accident?
Dayton Cote reached into a railcar’s bottom discharge opening to loosen wet or clumped frac sand. A coworker operated the TLX36 hydraulic controls, causing the railcar gate to close while Cote’s hand remained inside.
Where Did the Accident Occur?
The accident occurred at a frac sand transfer yard in Wysox, Pennsylvania. Workers at the facility transferred sand from railcars into trucks.
What Was the TLX36 Transloader?
The TLX36 was industrial equipment used during the railcar unloading process. Schnell Industries designed and manufactured the machine, while FB Industries served as Schnell’s exclusive North American distributor and sold the unit to Northeast Freight Transfer. Cote worked for Shale Rail, a subsidiary of Northeast Freight Transfer.
What Defect Did Cote Allege?
Cote alleged that the TLX36 lacked a dedicated mechanism for isolating the hydraulic circuit controlling the railcar gate while allowing other parts of the machine to continue operating. His engineering evidence also addressed control placement, electrical circuitry, operating instructions, and a line-of-sight theory that the court excluded.
Did the Court Decide That the TLX36 Was Defective?
No. The summary judgment and Rule 702 rulings allowed the remaining design-defect dispute and competing engineering opinions to proceed. They did not establish that the TLX36 was defective or that Schnell was liable.
Which Defendants Settled With Cote?
Cote settled his claims against U.S. Silica Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and FB Industries. As of the November 8, 2022 pretrial ruling, a strict products liability claim against Schnell Industries remained.
Machine Design
Machine Guarding
Hydraulics
Machine Safety
Workplace Accidents
Railroad Safety
Railroad Operations
Safety Engineering
Product Safety
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing