Articles Posted in Daubert

by

Overview: Automotive Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court concluded that Bloch’s testimony that alternative designs of the Silverado would have saved the plaintiff’s life was unreliable.

Facts:  This case (Miranda Polk v. General Motors, LLC – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – January 29th, 2024) involves a claim of product liability and negligence of defective design.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant General Motors should be held liable for injuries she sustained after being injured in an accident involving a Silverado, manufactured by GM.  The plaintiff hired Automotive Engineering Expert Witness Byron Bloch to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude Bloch from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Overview: ERISA Expert Witness testimony allowed because the court ruled that the expert was qualified because she is a pensions lawyer who has represented plan sponsors, plan administrators, and service providers.

Facts:  This case (Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – January 31, 2024) involves a claim under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The plaintiff, Mark Zavislak, the beneficiary of the defendant’s health benefit plan, alleges that he did not receive all of health and welfare plan documents requested, which he alleges is a violation of Section 104 or ERISA.  To assist in their case Netflix hired ERISA Expert Witness Marcia S. Wagner to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant’s argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion on miters saws as he does not have the requisite experience on the topic.

Facts:  This case (Landi et al v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – September 24th, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiff claims that he was injured while using a miter saw manufactured by the defendant and purchased from Home Depot.  The plaintiff alleges that he was using the saw to cut crown molding, operating the saw with his right hand and holding the crown molding with his left.  The plaintiff claims that while the blade was spinning, the crown molding was pulled to the right and the plaintiff’s left arm was pulled as well.  The blade subsequently cut into the plaintiff’s left forearm.  The plaintiff hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Dr. Charles E. Benedict to provide expert witness testimony and the defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: A Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness allowed to testify, in part, in fire litigation caused by lightning despite objections from the plaintiffs that his testimony would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Philmar Dairy, LLC et al v. Armstrong Farms, et al – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – July 12th, 2019) involves a dispute over the delivery of alfalfa hay.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not deliver over 2,500 tons of hay and did not refund the money to the plaintiffs.  The defendants state that a fire caused lightning destroyed the hay.  The plaintiffs state that the defendants fabricated the existence of the fire.  The defendants hired Dr. Elizabeth Austin (Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Labor Economics Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that her expert opinions on the calculation of damages will help the jury.

Facts:  This case (EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – March 31, 2023), involves an employment discrimination claim brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  The plaintiff, La’Tonya Ford, alleges that, after she moved to the defendant’s Denver office, she was discriminated against based on her sex, color, and race.  She claims that she was passed over for promotions even though she was a top performer in the office.  To enhance her case, the plaintiff hired Labor Economics Expert Witness Dr. Patricia Pacey to provide expert witness testimony on here behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary – Automotive Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert witness did not physically test any of the alternate vehicle designs.

Facts – This case (Druzba v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. et al – United States District Court – District of Vermont – May 15, 2024) involves a product liability claim.  The plaintiff, Matthew Druzba, alleges that the defendant, Honda Motor Company, should be held liable for design defects as well as negligence.  The decedent, Cecile Druzba, was driving on Vermont Route 22A when she was hit by a man driving a Subaru. The decedent was pronounced dead one hour after the accident.   The plaintiff hired Automotive Engineering Expert Witness Mr. Brian Herbst to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Expert Witness testimony not allowed because the expert provided legal opinions about discrimination, which is not admissible.

Facts – This case (Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of California – May 9th, 2024) involves a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The plaintiff, Melvin Patterson, claims that the defendant, Six Flags, discriminated against him by not providing an American Sign Language interpreter when he visited the defendant’s amusement park.  To assist in their case, the defendant hired Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Expert Witness Robert F. Minnick to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Minnick.

Continue reading

by

Summary – Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert is not qualified to offer an opinion on the locking mechanism on a chair on a cruise line simply by having worked on a cruise ship.

Facts – This case (Martin-Viana v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. – United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi – May 8th, 2024) involves a personal injury claim by a passenger on a cruise line operated by the defendant, Royal Caribbean.  The plaintiff, Eulalia Martin-Viana, alleges that when she sat on a chair on her balcony, the locking mechanism didn’t work, and she fell backwards and hit her head on the sliding glass door.  She filed a negligence claim against the defendant, arguing that the defendant, did not supervise its crew, did not properly train its crew, failed to provide adequate crew, among other claims.  The plaintiff hired Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness Randall Jacques to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary –  Biomedical Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defense argued that the expert was not qualified to provide an opinion on unsafe conditions even though she is not a marine safety expert.

Facts – This case (Tisdale v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – May 7th, 2024) involves a personal injury and negligence  claim.  The plaintiff William Tisdale, alleges that he was working on the ship M/V ST JOHN, which wis owned by the defendant.  The plaintiff states that felt a pop in his lower back/hip when he picked up a lock line.  Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant with multiple claims including that the vessel was shorthanded and that the work was outside of his job classification.  The plaintiff hired Biomedical Expert Witness Susan M. Bowley to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert testified that his opinion on the injuries were based on his own experience and expertise.

Facts:  This case (RASCHELLE GOFF V KAREN L NIVER MD – State of Michigan – Court of Appeals – June 18th, 2019) involves a medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiff argues that during the birth of her baby, she suffered three injuries.  The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor and hospital alleging that the doctor violated the standard of case by not recognizing and surgically repairing a sphincter tear and retrovaginal tear following the delivery of her baby.  The plaintiff hired Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness Dr. Robert Dein to provide testimony on her behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Dein.  The lower court granted the motion to exclude.  This is the appeal.

Continue reading