DePuy and several other manufacturers of knee replacement systems have collectively been the subject of thousands of product liability lawsuits. Litigation results have been mixed, and DePuy has settled some cases. No doubt the outcome in most cases depends on whether the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert is admitted or excluded. Today’s case involves DePuy’s successful exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion and, as a result, summary judgment in its favor.
In Anderson v. The Raymond Corporation (7th Cir., No.
This case is must reading for any trial lawyer (plaintiff or defense) who litigates product liability cases that rely on sophisticated expert testimony. In a workmanlike 35-page opinion (I did say the case was complex), the Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court’s exclusion of the plaintiffs’ medical and engineering experts and its resulting grant of summary judgment to the defendant. In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation – Amador v.
In my ongoing chronicle of sports-related litigation, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/sports-law, I have previously had occasion to cite the work of Michael McCann, Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst and the founding director of the University of New Hampshire Law School’s Sports and Entertainment Law Institute. Professor McCann has outdone himself in a just-posted article, “U.S. Women’s National Team Challenges Use of U.S.
A recent opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Kopplin v. Wisconsin Central Limited, http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-01/C:17-3602:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2286594:S:0, is an excellent reminder that a case can fail without a well-chosen and properly prepared expert witness.
Here’s a timely reminder that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (the basis of the Supreme Court’s famous Daubert decision) imposes a four-part test. For expert opinion testimony to be admissible, the fact that the expert has “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” [Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)] is necessary, but not sufficient.
The U.S.
