Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc.

In action seeking recovery for personal injuries incurred by plaintiff when industrial grease propelled out of large spindle mechanism and hit plaintiff in chest, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion under Daubert to bar plaintiff's expert from offering opinion as to cause of accident. Record showed that plaintiff's expert applied reliable science and mathematical models to known facts and data, so as to allow jury to find that accident was caused by design defect in said mechanism. Plaintiff's expert could also properly testify that reasonable designer would have considered danger of powerful spring within said mechanism, and that alterative design could have significantly reduced said danger. Fact that defendant disagreed with theory of plaintiff's expert as to causation of accident did not require different result.