Showing results 1-8 of 8.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"The district court granted the defendant's motion to strike the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Roland Ruhl, on the issue of whether the power cord wrap had been defectively designed."

  Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corporation - 7th Circuit

Decided: 10/23/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

With regard to the first tier of analysis, Daubert offers a non-exclusive list of factors to aid judges in determining whether particular expert opinion is grounded in reliable scientific methodology. ... Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles of Daubert, a district court judge is to act as a "gatekeeper" for expert testimony, only admitting such testimony after receiving satisfactory evidence of its reliability.

Cited 88 times
Forklift truck manufacturers Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Engineering vehicles 

  Bourelle v. Crown Equipment Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 7/17/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Kumho, the Supreme Court clarified its decision in Daubert and held that "this basic gatekeeping obligation" applies to all expert testimony. ... Furthermore, "[o]ur cases have recognized the importance of testing in alternative design cases," Cummins v. Lyle Industries, 536*536 93 F.3d 362, 368 (7th Cir.1996), and "[t]he trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable."

Cited 53 times
Engineering vehicles Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Forklift truck manufacturers 

  Milanowicz v. Raymond Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 7/12/2001

As configured in the Third Circuit, Daubert compels a three-part analysis: (1) qualifications — whether the expert is qualified to speak with authority on the subject at issue; (2) reliability — whether the expert's methodology is sound and whether his or her opinion is supported by "good 531*531 grounds;" and (3) fit — whether there is a relevant "connection between the scientific research or test result to be presented and particular disputed factual issues in the case." ... Kimberly M. Hrabosky, Note, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael: Stretching Daubert Beyond Recognition, 8 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 203 (1999) (arguing that "mechanical application of Daubert to nonscientific expert testimony defies logic and could lead to substantial injustice in the criminal context");

Cited 38 times

  Padilla v. Hunter Douglas Window Coverings, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 2/6/2014

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ("Rule 702) and the Supreme Court's seminal case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... The purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to scrutinize the proposed expert witness testimony to determine if it has "`the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field' so as to be deemed reliable enough to present to a jury."

Cited 1 times

  Elher v. Misra - MI

Decided: 12/2/2014

MRE 702, enhanced by Daubert, sets forth four familiar reliability guideposts focusing on testing, peer review, the known and potential error rate of the expert's methodology, and general acceptance of the technique in the relevant scientific community. ... One question presented in Kumho was whether a trial court evaluating proposed expert testimony 345*345 "may consider several more specific factors that Daubert said might `bear on' a judge's gatekeeping determination."

Cited 0 times

  KOLOKOWSKI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/27/2009

Given the liberal construction of the qualifications of a putative expert under Daubert in the Third Circuit, see Yarchak, 208 F. Supp. 2d at 495 (observing same), Dr. McLay is sufficiently qualified to meet the first element of the Daubert trilogy. ... Rule 104(a) permits a preliminary inquiry in the form of a Daubert hearing, wherein the burden of proof on admissibility of an expert is set at a preponderance of the evidence.

Cited 0 times

  NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC. v. RAYMOND CORPORATION - 6th Circuit

Decided: 7/1/2010

Having carefully examined the plaintiff's expert report in light of Rule 702 and Daubert, the Court concludes that the expert, Ben T. Railsback, does not have "specialized knowledge [that] will assist the trier of fact" in this case involving a forklift and, further, that the testimony that would be offered by Railsback is not the "product of reliable principles and methods [. . .] applied [. . .] reliably to the facts of the case." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 578 (1993), the Supreme Court addressed the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony and assigned a gatekeeping function in this regard to the trial court.

Cited 0 times

  McFarland v. TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 2/17/2015

During the pre-trial conference, District Judge Castillo ordered Tricam to condense these various motions into one motion in limine to exclude portions of expert testimony, commonly called a partial Daubert motion.[5] ... Second, Tricam argues that this "hand forces" test is inadmissible because Mr. Hutter does not provide video footage of the test, nor did he record the forces he applied to the ladder or the manner in which he applied them.[43] Tricam relies on Zenith Electronics Corporation. v. WH-TV Broadcasting Corporation, which tells us that in order for expert testing to be admissible, "[s]omeone else using the same data and methods must be able to replicate the result."[44]

Cited 0 times