on any special skills [Lafferty] has acquired through education or experience.” NR 87:16-17. The court explained:
Nothing in the record suggests that Dr. Lafferty has the education or experience in chemistry or other similar fields so as to enable him to provide expert testimony as to whether any blood was present on the lap belt. Nor is his testimony regarding blood on the lap belt based on any scientific methodology or testing. Yet, an opinion whether there was any blood on the lap belt would appear to lend itself to verification by scientific methods and testing. In fact, Defendants’ expert, Richard E. Bisbing, has conducted tests of the webbing and buckle of the lap belt, which confirmed the presence of blood on the buckle and belt.
NR 87:17-18 (emphasis added). Because Lafferty’s proposed testimony concerning the lack of blood on the lap belt “concerns a field of science that is outside his area of expertise,” it “would not assist the trier of fact” and thus “is not admissible under Rule 702.” Id. at 18. For all three of these reasons, the district court granted defendants’ motion to strike Lafferty’s testimony.
Finally, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court explained that to prevail on his claims, Clark “must prove that his lap belt was defective.” NR 87:24. In this case, this means that Clark “must prove that his lap belt unlatched during the accident sequence” — a point that Clark “does not dispute.” NR 87:23. “This he cannot do,” the district court reasoned, because “the undisputed fact witness testimony is that Mr. Clark’s lap belt was in place in the proper location across his lap” and “the opinion of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Harry Smith, that Mr. Clark’s lap belt remained latched during the accident sequence is uncontroverted.” NR 87:24. “The only evidence” that the lap belt became unlatched are “the opinions of Dr. Lafferty and Ms. Hodson’s statements, which have been excluded from consideration.” NR 87:24-25. “Because the statements of Dr. Lafferty and Ms. Hodson have been excluded,” the court held, “there is no evidence of a defect in the lap belt, and Mr. Clark cannot prevail on his claims against Defendants. Defendants, therefore, are entitled to summary judgment.”