Monday, December 17, 2012

Eighth Circuit -- Randy Russell v. Whirlpool Corp.

Expert who did not apply a particular customary standard is not therefore barred -- the only requirement of the precedent is that where the standard is applied, it should be done correctly.

Expert testimony can derive from the expert's casual observation of the scene.

Where the fridge is the most charred, sufficient evidence for the finder of fact to decide the issue of where the fire started based on res ispa loquitor.

Witnesses' reference to 'the theory' was not a sufficiently improper barred reference to past problems with the device.

Randy Russell  v.  Whirlpool Corp.
Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.

Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.

Author's SSRN page here.