Reginald Exum v. General Electric Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred by excluding evidence of other accidents in a case involving a claim of negligent design, despite the fact that the accidents occurred under somewhat different, circumstances than the accident that was the subject of the suit
• holding it was error to find that engineer who lacked expertise in “kitchen design” and had “never examined a kitchen of a fast food restaurant” was unqualified to testify in products liability action against manufacturer of industrial fryer
• reversing district court’s exclusion of engineer who 24 lacked expertise in “kitchen design” and had “never examined a kitchen of a fast food restaurant” 25 and finding expert qualified to testify in products liability action against manufacturer of industrial 26 fryer
• “‘[E]xperience’ is only one among the five different ways to demonstrate an expert is qualified.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).