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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
