X hits on this document

135 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

45 / 47

added). Clark may not for the first time on appeal contend that the photograph, standing alone, should defeat summary judgment. Because it was never raised below, that argument has been waived. Hunztinger, 1998 WL 205240 at *4.

Second, the photograph, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment by raising a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the lap belt became unbuckled. As just explained, the testimony — both eyewitness and expert — that Clark’s lap belt remained in place was overwhelming. Froggett testified that the lap belt was “across [Clark’s] lap” (NR 47:Tab 5 at 20), and he was the only eyewitness who recalled seeing the belt. Smith also testified that the lap belt did not come unbuckled. In addition, Smith and Bisbing testified that there was blood on the lap belt and that the larger amount on the shoulder belt was likely caused by the blood tracking along the shoulder belt rather than flowing over it and into Clark’s lap. This expert testimony was undisputed. Thus, the inference Clark suggests the jury could draw from the photograph alone (that the lap belt must have unbuckled) was refuted by uncontradicted expert and eyewitness testimony. Under these circumstances, the photograph alone could not forestall summary judgment in defendants’ favor.19/

Nor can Clark draw any support from Pries v. Honda Motor Co., 31 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 1994). There, plaintiff’s expert in industrial design testified that a seat belt bore signs of stress consistent with use during an accident. Id. at 544. This Court noted that accidents “leave telltale signs in physical objects, signs that can be read by people who know what to look for and have the right instruments.” Ibid. That testimony, based on admissible expert opinion, was sufficient to create a disputed issue as to the use of the belt. Here, unlike in Pries, the proffered expert opinion was not admissible (and was

19/ As for Clark’s retraction theory (AOB 7), that too is squarely at odds with Froggett’s uncon- tradicted testimony that the lap belt remained in place (i.e., did not retract) after the accident.

38

Document info
Document views135
Page views135
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 12:52:51 UTC 2016
Pages47
Paragraphs559
Words16071

Comments