Gopalratnam v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Expert Witness
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-1810
Decision Date: 
December 15, 2017
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that fire at plaintiffs’ home was caused by defective lithium battery cell contained in laptop, where said motion was granted after Dist. Ct. had granted defendants’ motion to exclude opinions of plaintiff’s two experts that attributed fire to said battery cell. Opinion of one expert was properly excluded under Daubert and Rule 702, where underlying premise of expert’s opinion that battery cell caused fire was contrary to generally accepted battery science and was unsupported by tests contained in articles cited by said expert that established proposition that battery cells did not react uniformly when exposed to external fire. Moreover, opinion of second expert was properly excluded since it was based in part on discredited finding of first expert. As such, dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint was proper since there was no expert testimony to support plaintiffs’ claim that battery cell was defective.