Buckman v Bombardier Corp. 893 F.Supp 547 (E.D.N.C.)
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District North Carolina, refused to qualify an expert in a products liability action brought against the manufacturer of a Personal Water Craft applying the Daubert Standard. The expert reconstructionist sought to testify regarding defective operation of a "kill" switch which consisted of a lanyard fastened to the operator connected to a switch on the console so that if the operator falls off, the lanyard disconnects from the switch and the engine is killed and stops.
The court found the experiment by the reconstructionist on the engine "kill" switch was to verify a hypothesis rather than to test it.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the court finds that the portion of [the expert's] testimony and videotaped experiment concerning the Sea Doo's operation in the wake of the boat used in the experiment is without valid scientific principles and methodology, and therefore fails the first prong of the Daubert test. Defendant's motion to exclude [the] expert testimony and experiment evidence as to this portion of the testimony and experiment (which specifically includes demonstration of the "control" capacitor-equipped Sea Doo during this portion) is therefore ALLOWED. . . . .
Similarly, [the expert] nowhere indicates that he has tested a built-in design for a signaling or whistle device for the Sea Doo. Again, this testimony amounts to scientific conjecture, and not scientific knowledge, under Daubert and Stanczyk. Defendant's motion to exclude [this] testimony as to the signaling device is therefore ALLOWED.
The 1993 Daubert test is the subject of a separate article on page 1.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue