A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Read this first. Save yourself 30 minutes of time
Posted by:
Mark Goodson (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2018 09:33PM
FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs’ son tragically perished in a fire at plaintiffs’ home in June 2010. Believing that the fire was caused by a defective lithium ion battery cell from their son’s laptop, plaintiffs filed a products liability suit against separate manufacturers of the laptop, battery pack, and indi- vidual battery cells. Plaintiffs supported their causation the- ory solely through testimony from two expert witnesses, whom defendants later moved to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The district court granted defend- ants’ motions to exclude, and therefore entered summary judgment in their favor. Plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s ruling. We affirm.
Both experts work for the same side.