The court also held that when a treating physician morphs into a witness hired to render expert opinions that go beyond the usual scope of a treating doctor's testimony, the proponent of the testimony must comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 26(a)(2). The court reversed summary judgment on the breach of duty ruling and held that there were genuine issues of material facts as to whether the end cap was an open and obvious condition and, even assuming obviousness, whether defendant should have anticipated the danger nevertheless. Also at issue was whether the district court properly precluded nonmedical expert testimony. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant breached its duty to her and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by her fall. The district court prohibited plaintiff's medical experts from testifying about causation in her case-in-chief due to her failure to comply with expert disclosure rules. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that defendant negligently allowed an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist in its store after she fell over an end cap and injured herself.
0 kommentar(er)
