[Lafferty] has acquired through education or experience.” NR 87:16-17. The district 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.” NR 87:18. Accordingly, the district court ordered this testimony stricken as well.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in making this evidentiary ruling. Lafferty is not a chemist, and his qualifications as an engineer do not permit him to opine on the presence of blood on the lap belt and buckle. Indeed, Lafferty’s sworn testimony concerning the purported absence of blood turned out to be false (as demonstrated by the testimony of defendants’ qualified expert, Bisbing). Nor was Lafferty’s (revised) opinion in his made-for-summary-judgment affidavit — that the difference in blood on the lap belt and shoulder belt showed that the lap belt had become unlatched during the accident
based on any reliable scientific methodology. On the contrary, it rests on a number
of unarticulated and unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that Clark’s lap belt was not covered or protected (for example, by a garment), and the assumption that blood from Clark’s head would have flowed over the shoulder belt and down to his lap rather than laterally along the shoulder belt.
Even if Lafferty’s expertise permitted him to present any opinion on this subject (it did not), his opinion was inadmissible under Daubert. Lafferty’s opinion that a lap belt would have a lot of blood in this type of accident lends itself to testing by the