Haynes

Haynes v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Good Law
319 F. App'x 541
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 12, 2009No. 07-56609California393 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Senyah and Adam Haynes (collectively, the “Haynes”), appeal the adverse grant of summary judgment in this wrongful death action arising from Amtrak’s failure to warn of the risk that long-distance train travel can cause deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”). The Haynes argue the district court prejudicially abused its discretion by excluding the expert declaration of Dr. Mark Sanders (“Dr.Sanders”). Reciting the facts only as necessary, we affirm.

Dr. Sanders has extensive qualifications and education in “Human Factors,” but that expertise simply does not qualify him to render expert opinions on either (1) the risk that prolonged train travel would cause DVT or (2) the foreseeability of the alleged risk. Dr. Sanders has no expertise in medicine, public health, epidemiology, DVT, or train travel. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he has any independent expertise qualifying him to give an opinion regarding medical causation or foreseeability.

*543 Dr. Sanders’s opinion was also properly excluded because his opinion was not “based upon sufficient facts or data” or otherwise “the product of reliable principles and methods.” Fed.R.Evid. 702; see also Daubert v.…

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.