Expert testimony may be admissible where the proffered testimony is both relevant and reliable; summary judgment will not be granted where it cannot be demonstrated that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific risk or that the plaintiff did not use the product in a reasonably expected manner. Tungate v. Bridgestone Corporation et al., Case No. IP 02-0151-C H/K, U.S. District Court of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, March 26, 2004.
Tungate was seriously injured when he was servicing a truck tire manufactured by Bridgestone, and it exploded. Bridgestone moved for summary judgment, arguing defenses of incurred risk and misuse, and questioned whether Tungate had evidence that would support a finding of a design defect and alternative design. Bridgestone further moved to strike the expert testimony of Tungate’s tire design expert.
