stating that imposing liability for failure to test “where the causal link to the known harm to [Burley] is the unknown outcome of testing that was not done, would be beyond the pale of any ... tort doctrine we can identify”
How later courts described this case
- stating that imposing liability for failure to test “where the causal link to the known harm to [Burley] is the unknown outcome of testing that was not done, would be beyond the pale of any ... tort doctrine we can identify”
- accepting premise of defendant’s, argument that a student athlete injured by exercise *614 equipment did not read the instruction manual and therefore could not establish proximate cause, but rejecting argument because the athlete’s trainer, who was responsible for and oversaw the athlete’s use of the equipment, had read the manual
- finding that expert testimony was required to aid jury in determining whether alleged defective hook in sports product was the proximate or legal cause of plaintiffs arm injuries
- stating any deficiencies in an expert’s opinion or qualifications can be tested through the adversary process at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEIERHENRY, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 55.] I concur on Issue 1 (Daubert) and join Justice Sabers’ dissent on the other issues.