Expert Witness Blog
In Oliveira v. Bridgestone, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41407, the Northern District of Georgia court ruled to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ liability expert witness, Jon M. Crate. The plaintiffs allege that the right rear tire of their vehicle suffered a blowout due to a defect in the tire and caused an accident resulting in serious injury. They charge Bridgestone with (1) strict liability, (2) negligence, (3) misrepresentation, and (4) breach of warranty. Expert witness Crate testified on the cause of the tire blowout and the resultant vehicle rollover. The blowout, according to Crate, was caused by tread separation due to a defect in the tire. However, Bridgestone argued that the plaintiffs’ expert witness had a general background in polymer chemistry, materials failure, and metallurgy, but was not qualified to render expert witness testimony about tire failure and tread separation since he has no special education or experience in that particular field.
The court upheld the defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Jon M. Crate.