Hauck v. Michelin North America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an alleged manufacturing defect in a tire was beyond the ambit of common knowledge of ordinary persons
• the mere fact that a tire failed was insufficient proof of a defect, and expert testimony was required to prove a defect
• “[T]o be qualified in one area of a discipline or science does not necessarily demonstrate that the tendered expert is qualified in other areas of the discipline.”
• “As [the expert’s] testimony has been excluded by virtue of this Court’s ruling on the defendant’s Daubert motion, there is insufficient evidence to allow plaintiff’s claims of strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty of merchantability to go to trial.”
• “If an expert opines as to causation in a product liability case based on a process of elimination approach, he or she needs to be an expert as to the remaining theory using a reliable methodology justifying it as the sole cause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).