Injury victims lose their case after their only expert witness is disqualified.
Mld Minor By and Through Her Next Friend and Mother Stacey Dozier Et
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Injury victims lose their case after their only expert witness is disqualified.
Why it matters
In Mld Minor By and Through Her Next Friend and Mother Stacey Dozier Et al. v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted all three of Kawasaki's motions, excluding the plaintiffs' proposed expert, excluding a related affidavit, and granting summary judgment in Kawasaki's favor. The case arose from a 2021 rollover of a Kawasaki Teryx side-by-side vehicle that injured three occupants, and the central dispute was whether a manufacturing defect or the plaintiffs' misuse of the vehicle caused the crash.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects the injured plaintiffs, who will not recover damages from Kawasaki through this lawsuit. It also serves as a practical reminder for product liability plaintiffs that expert testimony is often essential, and losing that testimony can be fatal to a case.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Sep 14, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Sep 14, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Sep 14, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The plaintiffs, two minor children and a teenage cousin, were injured when a Kawasaki Teryx off-road side-by-side vehicle rolled over on a paved public road in Kentucky in February 2021. The vehicle had been purchased by the children's father and was used primarily on public roads, despite a warning label stating that operators must be 16 or older with a valid driver's license and that operation on public roads was prohibited. The driver at the time, M.L.D., was fourteen years old. After the rollover, both sides agreed that parts of the rear-left wheel assembly were significantly damaged, including the knuckle, bearing assembly, and wheel. The key factual dispute was causation: the plaintiffs argued a manufacturing defect caused the knuckle to fracture on its own, making the vehicle uncontrollable, while Kawasaki argued the damage resulted from the plaintiffs' misuse of the vehicle and from the rollover impact itself. The plaintiffs relied on a proposed expert, Chris Walters, to support their manufacturing defect theory. The court granted Kawasaki's motion to exclude Walters' expert testimony and also granted a separate motion to exclude an affidavit submitted by Walters. With the expert testimony excluded, and no other sufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims of manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn, the court granted summary judgment in Kawasaki's favor on all claims. The source text does not describe the specific legal reasoning behind the exclusion of the expert or the precise grounds for summary judgment in detail, but the outcome was that all three of Kawasaki's motions were granted. There is no dissent referenced in the source text, as this is a district court opinion by a single judge.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (LONDON) M.L.D., minor, by and through her Next ) Friend and Mother, Stacey Dozier, et al., ) ) Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-207-CHB Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on three motions filed by Defendant Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (“Kawasaki”): a Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Proposed Expert, Chris Walters (“Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony”), [R. 27]; a Motion for Summary Judgment, [R. 28]; and a Motion to Exclude the Affidavit of Chris Walters (“Motion to Exclude Affidavit”), [R. 34]. Plaintiffs M.L.D. and B.S.D., both minors, by and through their next friend and mother, Stacey Dozier,1 and Plaintiff Stacie Kara-Lynn Blankenship filed a response to the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and the Motion for Summary Judgment, [R. 32]2, and Kawasaki filed a reply, [R. 35]. Plaintiffs did not file a response to the Motion to Exclude Affidavit, and the time to do so has passed. These motions are therefore ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant each motion. 1 Although M.L.D. was a minor when this suit was filed, she has since attained the age of majority. See [R. 31-1, p. 9:18–21]; Link v. Link, No. 2025-CA-0790-MR, 2026 WL 1838803, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. June 26, 2026) (“Under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 2.015, the age of majority in Kentucky is eighteen.”). No party, however, has moved the Court to remove Ms. Dozier as the named plaintiff or to substitute M.L.D. as the real party in interest. See, e.g., Wilson v. Luttrell, Nos. 99-5459, 99-5460, 99-5461, 99-5462, 2000 WL 1359624, at *10 (6th Cir. Sep. 13, 2000). The Court thus retains the original party designations and refers to M.L.D. by her initials throughout this opinion and order. 2 Plaintiffs filed a response, [R. 31], followed by an amended response, [R. 32]. I. BACKGROUND This action arises from a single-vehicle rollover incident in which Plaintiffs suffered bodily injuries. See [R. 1-2]. On March 3, 2020, James Dozier purchased a new Kawasaki Teryx, an offroad utility vehicle commonly referred to as a “side-by-side.” [R. 28-4, pp. 17:18–19:11, 83:10– 85:8].3 A permanent warning label affixed to the driver’s side of the vehicle stated, among other things, “Make sure operators are 16 or older with a valid driver’s license,” and, “Do not allow operation on public roads (unless designated for off-highway vehicle access)[;] collisions with cars and trucks can occur.” [R. 28-3, p. 12]; [R. 28-6]; [R. 28-4, pp. 26:19–27:23]; [R. 31-1, pp. 19:10– 20:12]; [R. 31-3, pp. 18:14–18, 51:19–21]. Mr. Dozier purchased the side-by-side for the use of his three children, M.L.D., B.S.D., and C.D. [R. 28-4, pp. 8:11–9:5, 17:17–18:8, 20:9–13]. Between March 2020 and February 2021, the children used the side-by-side primarily to drive on the roads near where they lived in Gray, Kentucky, but they also used it to ride on nearby trails. Id. at 28:17–31:2; [R. 31-1, pp. 28:5–18]. On February 21, 2021, M.L.D. was driving the side-by-side on paved roads near Gray; B.S.D. was in the passenger seat, and the children’s cousin, Ms. Blankenship, was in the back seat. [R. 28-4, pp. 6:21–25, 37:15–19, 39:9–23]; [R. 31-1, pp. 26:8–33:23]; [R. 31-2, p. 17:1–11]; [R. 31-3, pp. 24:12–25:17]. M.L.D. was fourteen years old; B.S.D. was twelve; and Ms. Blankenship was seventeen. [R. 31-1, pp. 9:22–10:1]; [R. 31-2, p. 8:12–14]; [R. 31-3, p. 8:6– 18]. Ahead of M.L.D., the children’s mother was driving a different side-by-side, and C.D. was riding a dirt bike. [R. 28-4, pp. 12:12–18, 39:24–40:5]; [R. 31-1, pp. 34:23–36:6;] [R. 31-3, pp. 24:25–25:8]. 3 Throughout this opinion and order, the Court’s citations to deposition transcripts reference the page numbers listed on the transcripts. Shortly after M.L.D. turned onto Route 233 from a smaller road, she felt the side-by-side “steering to the right,” and “after that, [the side-by-side] just flipped.” [R. 28-4, pp. 41:25–43:18, 67:13–68:4; R. 31-1, pp. 33:4–34:5; R. 31-2, p. 17:18–23; R. 31-3, pp. 26:8–27:10; R. 28-3]. M.L.D. testified in her deposition that she believed, apparently based on what she had been told by adults, that the crash occurred because “something” on the side-by-side “broke.” [R. 31-1, pp. 76:10–77:12]. Plaintiffs cannot recall whether M.L.D. tried to apply the brakes or turn the steering wheel back to the left prior to the rollover. [R. 31-1, pp. 34:13–22]; [R. 31-2, p. 19:22– 24]; [R. 31-3, pp. 28:21–29:1]. Plaintiffs estimate that the side-by-side was traveling at around twenty-five to thirty miles per hour when it rolled over. [R. 31-1, p. 34:6–12]; [R. 31-3, p. 29:12– 14]. The side-by-side came to rest upside down, and Plaintiffs, who were all wearing seatbelts, remained suspended inside the vehicle. [R. 31-1, pp. 39:16–40:20]; [R. 31-2, pp. 18:21–19:2, 20:4– 16]; [R. 31-3, pp. 27:11–16, 29:15–23]. Plaintiffs suffered various injuries in the rollover, including bumps, bruises, cuts, a fractured humerus (suffered by B.S.D.), and a concussion (suffered by Ms. Blankenship). [R. 31-1, pp. 43:23–48:12, 92:23–94:2]; [R. 31-2, pp. 23:5–24:8]; [R. 33-3, pp. 32:4–38:8]. Plaintiffs and Kawasaki agree that post-rollover inspections of the side-by-side revealed significant damage to several components of the rear-left wheel assembly of the side-by-side, including the knuckle, the bearing assembly, and the wheel itself. See [R. 28, pp. 1–2]; [R. 32, pp. 1–2, 6–7]. The parties disagree, however, about the cause of that damage. Plaintiffs and their proposed expert argue that a manufacturing defect caused the knuckle to fracture “on its own,” which in turn caused the side-by-side to become uncontrollable and ultimately to rollover. See, e.g., [R. 32, pp. 6–7]; [R. 28-1 (Walters Report)]. Kawasaki and its proposed experts argue that the damage to the rear-left wheel assembly was caused by Plaintiffs’ misuse of the side-by-side and/or by the rollover itself. See, e.g., [R. 28, p. 9]; [R 28-2 (Umberger Report)]; [R. 28-3 (Breen Report)]. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Kawasaki Tennessee, Inc., in Knox Circuit Court on February 9, 2022. [R. 1-2]; [R. 1-3]. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint instead naming Kawasaki Motor Corp., U.S.A., as the sole defendant. [R. 1-2]; [R. 1-3]. The amended complaint alleges a manufacturing defect, a design defect, and a failure to warn, each related to the February 2021 rollover incident. [R. 1-2, pp. 11–15]. Plaintiffs served the amended complaint on Kawasaki on November 16, 2023. See [R. 1]; [R. 1-1]. Kawasaki time
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.