Clayton W. Clark v. Takata Corporation, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are based upon 13 some recognized scientific method”
• excluding expert who proposed an alternative, allegedly safer design in product liability case without testing it
• “an expert does not assist the trier of fact in determining whether a product failed if he starts his analysis based upon the assumption that the product failed”
• “[a] party cannot claim a lack of general knowledge about a subject and later make a statement which requires detailed knowledge about the same subject . . . .”
• “A supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions unless those opinions are reliable and relevant under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert.”
• “We have held that a district court is required to rule out ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation’ by considering ‘whether the testimony has been subjected to the scientific method.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).