David Oddi v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that expert testimony was required to sustain a design defect claim with regard to a truck
• holding that the district court did not err “in granting summary judgment here without an in limine hearing”
• concluding that expert testimony was required to sustain a design defect claim with regard to a truck
• holding that expert testimony was not admissible when the expert made no calculations, did not test his hypotheses, and failed to consider alternative explanations for the collision
• stating that a hearing is necessary “to determine how the expert reached his opinion”
• noting that Pennsylvania does not recognize an independent tort for “negligent failure to test” since the failure to test is part of “a routine products liability case based on negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).