Summary: Biomechanics Expert Witness allowed to testify in part even though the plaintiff argued that the experts testimony should be excluded because a model of a head was different than the head of the plaintiff.
Facts: This case (Rogers, Steven et al v. K2 Sports USA et al – United States District Court – Western District of Wisconsin – December 28th, 2018) involves an injury the plaintiff suffered while skiing. The plaintiff allege that the helmet he was wearing, made by the defendant, was designed defectively and that the defect caused the injury. The plaintiffs have sued for negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty. The defendant denies that the helmet was defective, arguing instead that the helmet was the wrong size and that Scott had not properly fastened it, and that he was injured by direct contact with the ground. The defendant has hired Biomechanics Expert Witness Irving Scher to provide testimony on their behalf. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: Scher used computer models to ascertain the fit and looseness of the helmet that the plaintiff wore. In addition, Scher conducted a biomechanical engineering analysis so as determine the kinematics of the accident. The plaintiff argue that both conclusions should be excluded.