Expert Witness Blog
The US District Court for the District of South Carolina denied both motions filed by manufacturer Metalcraft in a products liability action. The summary judgment motion as well as the motion to exclude the testimony of an opposing products liability expert witness were denied. In Kevin Neil Flynn vs. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36380, Flynn brought a products liability action for injuries he sustained when he was mowing using a Scag Hydrostatic Walk-Behind Mower (“mower”) manufactured by Metalcraft. Flynn alleges that on July 19, 2003, he was using the mower when he lost control and the mower turned on him, causing injuries to his left ankle and right foot from the blade.
Flynn asserted causes of action based on strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Metalcraft filed a summary judgment motion and a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Lynn Burkholder, the plaintiff’s liability expert witness. Metalcraft contended that (1) the testimony of Lynn Burkholder, the Plaintiff’s liability expert, must be excluded; (2) the doctrine of spoiliation requires dismissal of this case; and (3) the Plaintiff’s comparative negligence exceeds fifty percent.
The court denied Metalcraft’s motion for summary judgment as well as Metalcraft’s motion in limine to exclude Burkholder’s testimony.