holding in products liability claim against a maintenance contractor that the trial court did not err in excluding an engineer’s opinion regarding spar cracks in a vertical fin because expert offered ″no explanation of how he formed the opinion″ nor did he explain ″the likelihood he assigns to each of the unknowns nor spoken with the sort of ″precision and logic’ that would allow us to assess the relationship between his experience as a materials engineer and his opinion in this case″ (quoting United States v. Frazier, 322 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2003))
How later courts described this case
- holding in products liability claim against a maintenance contractor that the trial court did not err in excluding an engineer’s opinion regarding spar cracks in a vertical fin because expert offered ″no explanation of how he formed the opinion″ nor did he explain ″the likelihood he assigns to each of the unknowns nor spoken with the sort of ″precision and logic’ that would allow us to assess the relationship between his experience as a materials engineer and his opinion in this case″ (quoting United States v. Frazier, 322 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2003))
- reasoning that the essential question under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. is “whether subjecting a contractor to liability under state tort law would create a significant conflict with a unique federal interest”
- holding claims that service contractor negligently maintained military helicopters preempted by the discretionary functions exception
- finding Boyle’s analysis “is not designed to promote all-or-nothing rules regarding different classes of contract”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDMONDSON, Chief Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment, and I join in Judge Barkett’s opinion except for Part IIC.