Expert opinion testimony will be excluded where the expert has no expertise in the necessary field and does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge about the facts of the case. Battistella v. Daimler-Chrysler Motors Co., Civil Action No. 03-2286 Section: “D” (1), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, June 14, 2004.
Battistella was injured when his 2001 Dodge Ram rear-ended another vehicle and the driver-side air bag did not deploy. Battistella sued Chrysler based upon the “crashworthiness” of the Ram. Chrysler moved for summary judgment and to have Battistella’s expert disqualified. The court disqualified the expert and granted Chrysler’s motion to dismiss. It held that the expert did not base his opinion on the facts of this case, but upon evidence in other incidents. It considered that the expert did not acquire sufficient information about the Battistella crash in particular; furthermore, the expert did not have any specialized knowledge of biomechanics, occupant kinematics or other fields relevant to a crashworthiness claim. The plaintiff failed to attach sufficient alternate evidence in addition to the expert’s affidavit to create a genuine issue of fact to pass summary judgment.
This content has been archived.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]
