Michael R. DANCY, Appellant, v. HYSTER COMPANY, Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• excluding testimony of expert who had not designed proposed safety device or pointed to its use on similar machines
• affirming the district court’s exclusion of testimony by an expert who had never designed a forklift or lift truck and who had neither presented nor tested an alternative to the manufacturer’s design
• explaining under Arkansas law, “negligence requires proof that an ordinarily prudent person in the same situation will foresee an appreciable risk of harm to others, causing him or her to act in a more careful manner.”
• upholding a grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff who alleged that a lift truck was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a safety device but failed to provide expert testimony to support the proposition that a feasible safety device existed
• expressly rejecting the idea that Daubert principles apply to only scientific principles or methods
• district court properly looked to Daubert reliability factors for guidance regarding the admissibility of proffered expert testimony in alternative design case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).