Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, without expert testimony, plaintiffs strict liability defective design, negligence, and failure to warn claims failed
• holding that, without expert testimony, plaintiff’s strict liability defective design, negligence, and failure to warn claims failed
• excluding proposed design while noting that because it had not been designed or tested, it could not be subjected to peer review or evaluated for rate of error
• excluding testimony of proposed expert because no testing ever took place, no peer review and no testimony regarding general acceptance was offered
• excluding expert testimony of proposed expert because no testing ever took place, and no peer review or testimony regarding general acceptance was offered
• applying Daubert's testing factor in evaluating expert's theory that machine was defective because it lacked an alternate safety design

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).