This products liability case arose out of an accident during which a baseball coach was struck by a batted ball that went through an L-screen net while he was pitching batting practice.
In his decision in this case Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann granted in part and denied in part Rule 702 motions regarding experts in the case. In so ruling, the court noted the following principles of law.
An expert’s lack of technical background does not render an expert unqualified where that expert has sufficient practical experience.
The court also ruled that an expert need not have familiarity with a product in order to evaluate the adequacy of a manufacturer’s testing protocols.
The court also noted that an expert may rely solely upon material provided to the expert by counsel. However, that expert is not permitted to rely upon material that has not been disclosed to the opposing party.
The court also reaffirmed the rule that an expert may not testify about matters outside the scope of their opinions.
The court also noted that experts may assume the truth of the contested facts asserted by the parties who hired them. The weight of such opinions depends on how the jury ultimately views the underlying facts.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.
An expert’s lack of technical background does not render an expert unqualified where that expert has sufficient practical experience.
The court also ruled that an expert need not have familiarity with a product in order to evaluate the adequacy of a manufacturer’s testing protocols.
The court also noted that an expert may rely solely upon material provided to the expert by counsel. However, that expert is not permitted to rely upon material that has not been disclosed to the opposing party.
The court also reaffirmed the rule that an expert may not testify about matters outside the scope of their opinions.
The court also noted that experts may assume the truth of the contested facts asserted by the parties who hired them. The weight of such opinions depends on how the jury ultimately views the underlying facts.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.