Matthew Lindner v. Evenflo Company

MEMORANDUM *

Matthew Lindner and Joseph Benson (collectively “Lindner”) brought this Nevada product defect action against Evenflo Company individually and on behalf of members of the Lindner family who were injured in a vehicle rollover accident in Mexico. During that accident, baby Cami-la Lindner was ejected from the vehicle and killed while strapped into an Evenflo car seat. The district court granted Even-flo’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lindner’s experts on design defect and causation, and granted summary judgment in favor of Evenflo. We reverse on both grounds.

1. We review the admission of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for abuse of discretion. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F.3d 594 , 596 (9th Cir.1996). The district judge’s order did not disqualify plaintiff expert Dr. Hoffman because he was unqualified or because he used unreliable, unscientific methodology, as Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert test require. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-92 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Rather, the district court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support Dr. Hoffman’s…

specially concurring:

The district court ruled, in effect, that Dr. Hoffman’s opinion on causation would not “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” and was not “based on sufficient facts or data.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. Because the record shows that no evidence supported Dr. Hoffman’s opinion that the release handle (as opposed to the carrier handle) of the child car seat released because it hit the back of the front seat, the district court’s ruling was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.2009). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Hoffman’s causation opinion. Nevertheless, even excluding this opinion, there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding design defect and causation. Therefore I concur in the result.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW R. LINDNER, individually, No. 12-15470 as surviving parent and legal heir of Camila Lynete Lindner, a deceased minor D.C. No. 2:10-CV-00051-LDG- and JOSEPH L. BENSON, II, Esquire, as VCF guardian ad litem for Paulina Granados- Martinez,

MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; et al.,

Defendants,

And

EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Argued and Submitted September 11, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Matthew Lindner and Joseph Benson (collectively “Lindner”) brought this

Nevada product defect action against Evenflo Company individually and on behalf

of members of the Lindner…