Claude I. Smelser v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Daubert to exclude the testimony of a biomechanical engineer who failed to conduct pertinent testing
• noting expert’s admission that “biomechanics are qualified to determine what injury causation forces are in general and can tell how a hypothetical person’s body will respond to those forces....”
• “[T]he court ‘must ensure that the proposed expert testimony is relevant to the task at hand.’”
• where plaintiffs expert failed to perform any testing on the alleged defective seatbelt, the expert’s opinion should have been excluded
• “An expert opinion that is based on scientifically valid principles will satisfy Fed. R. Evid. 702; an expert’s subjective belief or unsupported speculation will not.”
• abrogated on other grounds by Morales v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 151 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 1998)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).