Furry

Furry v. Bielomatik, Inc.

Good Law
32 F. App'x 882
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 21, 2002No. 01-55442; D.C. No. CV-98-2600-MMMCalifornia787 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Furry (“Furry”) and his wife Regine Furry (collectively “the Furrys”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment against them and in favor of Bielomatik, Inc. (“Bielomatik”). The Furrys sued Bielomatik for products liability and related claims following a workplace accident in which Furry lost the fingers of his dominant right hand after they were crushed between the rollers of a Bielomatik paper converting machine. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2001). Because we conclude that the district court should not have excluded the opinion evidence of the Furrys’ only expert witness, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

The district court excluded the subject expert opinion under Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), then granted summary judgment for Bielomatik on the ground that the Furrys could not prevail on their claims absent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.