Tag: Product Liability

The plaintiffs challenged the defense experts on multiple fronts. They moved to preclude certain testimony of James J. Keough, Jr. regarding the RV design and accident, arguing his opinions lacked sufficient basis and methodology. But the court found Keough relied on extensive materials and technical experience, applying a reliable methodology. It emphasized vigorous cross-examination, not exclusion, was the way to address shaky expert opinions. Additionally, the plaintiffs moved to preclude opinions on medical expenses by the defense’s expert Henry Miller. Here the court partially agreed, barring testimony comparing hospital rates for unrelated conditions as insufficiently relevant and reliable. But it otherwise denied the motion, allowing Miller’s testimony on factors influencing reasonable medical expenses.

The defendants, on the other hand, sought to limit testimony on fire cause and origin by Plaintiff’s expert, Mark Sutherland. But again the court ruled that disagreements over an expert’s conclusions did not warrant exclusion if the methodology was fundamentally sound. It denied the motion, finding Sutherland properly relied on accident facts using established fire investigation techniques.