--- title: "Engineering Expert’s Opinions on Seats and Restraints Excluded" meta: "og:description": "The engineering expert did not identify any testable standard used to formulate his conclusions about the seats and restraints" "og:title": "Engineering Expert’s Opinions on Seats and Restraints Excluded" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The engineering expert did not identify any testable standard used to formulate his conclusions about the seats and restraints" --- # Engineering Expert’s Opinions on Seats and Restraints Excluded Posted on July 8, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler This action arises from injuries sustained by Christopher Fabricant, a 52-year-old pelvic surgeon, while riding the Kingda Ka rollercoaster at the Six Flags amusement park located in Jackson, New Jersey. Defendants challenged the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ expert [Edward M. Pribonic](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Edward-Pribonic/1520187), who was retained to “conduct an engineering review and mechanical analysis to determine the mechanisms by which Fabricant received the injuries to his spine, as the result of riding on the Kingda Ka roller coaster,” and, if necessary, opine on “the kinematics or movements that created the injury mechanisms.”  ## **Engineering Expert Witness** [Edward Mark Pribonic](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Edward-Pribonic/1520187) holds a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Pittsburgh; he is a registered professional engineer and is licensed in California. He specializes in “engineering design, rehabilitation, safety improvement, maintenance, ride safety inspections and accident investigation in the amusement ride industry.” Pribonic has held engineering related positions at Walt Disney Imagineering and Disneyland, has provided consultation to theme parks and ride manufacturers pertaining to ride equipment design, and has taught ride safety and inspection courses to California ride inspectors and to industry members. He has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of engineering in approximately twenty cases in both state and federal court in New Jersey. [Want to know more about the challenges Edward M. Pribonic has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1520187&pId=3).  ## **Discussion by the Court** In his July 15, 2019 declaration, Pribonic opined that the seats and restraints on Kingda Ka were standardized and mass-produced. Pribonic’s opinions regarding functionality, design, and structure are based solely on a visual comparison of photographs pulled from the internet that purport to be other Intamin and Intaride rollercoasters. Pribonic did not identify the dimensions, designs, or the nature of the materials of the seats, restraints, and/or locking mechanisms in reaching his conclusions. Moreover, Pribonic did not identify any testable hypothesis, standard, or technique used to formulate his conclusions.  As a result, the Court found that the opinions set forth in Pribonic’s July 15, 2019 declaration were inadmissible as they were unreliable and constituted net opinions. Given the technical expertise being offered here, the Court found that Pribonic’s opinion is impermissibly speculative because it is grounded only in his superficial observations of seat exteriors through photographs. Moreover, Pribonic’s declaration is not based on any methodology, but rather his own intuition. ## **Held** The Court held that any testimony regarding the opinions set forth in Edward Pribonic’s July 15, 2019 declaration failed to meet the _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ standard and was therefore inadmissible. ## **Key Takeaway**: The Court noted that an expert may focus upon personal knowledge or experience rather than scientific foundations. But even considering Pribonic’s experience in the amusement park industry and his time as an engineer, the Court found that his opinions in the July 15, 2019 declaration fell within the category of subjective belief and unsupported speculation. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Corrections Expert's Standard of Care Testimony Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-23T161938.085.jpg) [**Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/engineering-experts-opinions-on-seats-and-restraints-excluded/corrections-experts-standard-of-care-testimony-admitted)![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/engineering-experts-opinions-on-seats-and-restraints-excluded/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/engineering-experts-opinions-on-seats-and-restraints-excluded/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/engineering-experts-opinions-on-seats-and-restraints-excluded/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/engineering-experts-opinions-on-seats-and-restraints-excluded/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)