failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue concerning whether the seat belt had become unbuckled during the accident. Clark appeals. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting the motion to strike certain untested opinions of an expert witness on the ground that the expert (a) based his testimony on his “experience” rather than on any scientifically valid or reliable methodology, and (b) had previously testified under oath that he “didn’t address” and “ha[d] no opinion on” the subject as to which he later offered the excluded opinions.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting the motion to strike a fact witness’s affidavit that contradicted the witness’s prior deposition testimony.
Was summary judgment properly granted because, in the absence of the stricken materials, plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to give rise to any genuine issue concerning whether the lap belt came unbuckled during the accident.
INTRODUCTION This is a case in which the litigation system worked as it should. Through no fault of defendants, plaintiff Clark was seriously injured in a terrible car accident when his car was struck from behind, causing it to leave the highway and tumble down an embank- ment. Unable to prove the elements of his negligence and strict liability claims against the defendants, Clark, in an effort to get before a sympathetic jury, resorted to unreliable expert testimony and the affidavit of a fact witness that conflicted with the witness’s prior sworn testimony. The district court saw through that tactic and, correctly applying the rules of civil procedure, terminated this meritless case before trial. Although plaintiff has suffered a life-altering injury, neither the legal system nor defendants are to blame. The district court’s evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion. The summary judgment in defendants’ favor should be affirmed.