Thursday, February 02, 2006

Too Speculative for Fire Expert to Blame Dog, Says 3d Circuit

In a subrogation action against the manufacturer of a halogen lamp suspected of causing the fire that burned the insured's house to the ground, the Third Circuit has upheld the district court's ruling excluding testimony from the subrogee's fire expert. The expert's theory was that the insured's dog knocked over the lamp, igniting the drapes. But blaming the dog was pure speculation not founded on any discernible methodology, said the Third Circuit panel. And once there was nothing to bring the lamp in contact with the drapes, the rest of the expert's causation testimony would not have been helpful to the trier of fact. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Holmes Prods., Inc., No. 04-4532 (Jan. 31, 2006) (Barry, Ambro, & Aldisert, JJ.) (unpublished).

1 Comments:

Darksky Alaskan Malamutes writes ...

Could this be a nod to the past of "my dog ate it".
Surely a line has to be drawn.

|G

9:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Fed. R. Evid. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.