Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under New York law, a manufacturer is not obligated to design a product that is impossible to abuse
• evaluating the methodology of an engineering expert under Daubert in terms of its general acceptance in the community
• excluding expert testimony and granting summary judgment where opinion evidence was based on “unsubstantiated generalizations, speculative hypotheses and subjective evaluation”
• causes of action involving the duty and standard of care applicable to manufacturers, i.e., negligence and strict products liability claims, are, for choice of law purposes, conduct-regulating
• \Evidence contained in an expert's report therefore must be evaluated under [ Rule] 702 before it is considered in a ruling on the merits of a summary judgment motion.\
• “Evidence contained in an expert’s report therefore must be evaluated under Fed. R. Evid. 702 before it is considered in a ruling on the merits of a summary judgment motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).