# Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2001 · 2001 Pa. Super. 382

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719108

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl R. GRADY and Diana Grady, His Wife, Appellants v. FRITO-LAY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2001
- **Citations:** 2001 Pa. Super. 382; 789 A.2d 735; 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sole
- **Judges:** Sole, McEwen, Johnson, Elliott, Eakin, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Melvin
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719108

## Opinion text

DEL SOLE, President Judge,
Concurring.
¶ 11 join the opinion of President Judge Emeritus McEwen. However, I believe it appropriate to address the question of who has the burden of proof when expert testimony is challenged.
¶ 2 In my view, when a pre-trial motion is filed challenging an expert, commonly referred to as a Frye hearing, it is the movant who must establish that the expert is not qualified to testify. In that situation, the burden of proof should not be placed on the respondent to establish qualifications.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719108. Public record. Not legal advice.