explaining that, in a product liability claim for design defect, the plaintiff must show “‘[t]here existed an alternative design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant’s damage’” (quoting La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.56 )
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, in a product liability claim for design defect, the plaintiff must show “‘[t]here existed an alternative design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant’s damage’” (quoting La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.56 )
- finding no competent summary judgment evidence to support plaintiff’s “construction or composition” defect claim when plaintiff’s expert was not confirmed as an airbag expert or an accident re-constructionist, and there was no factual evidence to support claim
- refusing to “accept a general alleged warranty for purposes of an express warranty claim” under the LPLA (first emphasis added)
- refusing to “accept a general alleged warranty for purposes of an express warranty claim” under the LPLA (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUGHES, J.,
dissenting.
|TI respectfully dissent. I cannot conclude that summary judgment is proper in this case.
The curriculum vitae of plaintiffs expert was excluded because it was “unsworn and uncertified”. Must an affidavit be obtained from each school and each publisher? Is there any greater gift to a defense attorney than a plaintiffs expert with an inaccurate C.V.? La.Code Civ. P. art. 967 allows an expert to give an opinion on the facts by affidavit for purposes of summary judgment. But assessing the credibility of experts is the province of the fact finder.