Rupolo v. Oshkosh Truck Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “it should be for the fact-finder to determine whether Dr. Ojalvo’s reliance on the ANSI and OSHA standards is appropriate”
• stating that while the language of Rule 37(c)(1) suggests that exclusion is automatic, “preclusion is not generally ordered.”
• allowing expert testimony regarding causation of fall from ladder given expert conducted two inspections, consulted safety regulations, made relevant measurements, and conducted an accident reconstruction
• finding party-expectation factor neutral where parties did not share a common assumption about whether case would be tried to a jury
• finding this factor neutral where parties did not share a common assumption
• “Usually, whether or not a defect was indeed a substantial factor is a matter for the trier of fact to decide.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).