Tenth Circuit Summaries
| Publication year | 2005 |
| Pages | 123 |
| Citation | Vol. 34 No. 2 Pg. 123 |
2005, February, Pg. 123. Tenth Circuit Summaries
Vol. 34, No. 2, Pg. 123
The Colorado Lawyer
February 2005
Vol. 34, No. 2 [Page 123]
February 2005
Vol. 34, No. 2 [Page 123]
From the Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries
Summaries of selected opinions appear on a space-available
basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar
Association by Jenine Jensen and Catherine Campbell, licensed
Colorado attorneys. The summaries of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are provided as a service by
the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official
language of the Court. The Colorado Bar Association cannot
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries
Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are accessible
from the CBA website, http: //www.cobar.org/hotlinks.cfm
(United States Courts link to the Tenth Circuit). Call The
Colorado Lawyer Editorial Offices with questions: (303)
860-1118
Products Liability - Expert Scientific Testimony -
Court's Gatekeeping Function - Objection to Jury
Instruction Not Preserved for Appeal
Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., No. 02-1527, 12/6/04, D.Colo
Judge Lucero.
Plaintiff was badly burned in an explosion of a hot-water
heater manufactured by defendants. In his products liability
suit against the manufacturers, a jury found negligence and
product defect, and awarded plaintiff more than $2 million.
On appeal, defendants asserted error in the admission of
plaintiff's expert witnesses. The witnesses testified
that the explosion was caused by a faulty safety valve. The
Tenth Circuit Court reviewed whether the district court had
discharged its "gatekeeping" function to determine
if the proffered expert testimony had a reliable basis in the
knowledge and experience of the discipline, and if the
evidence was sufficiently relevant to the case at hand.
In evaluating the scientific basis, the Tenth Circuit holds
that a fire investigator's personal experience, training,
method of observation, and deductive reasoning were
sufficiently reliable to constitute scientifically valid
methodology. In addition, the Circuit holds that an expert is
not necessarily required to test his theory. Further, a
process of eliminating possible causes to identify the most
likely one was acceptable if (1) objective reasons were
provided, (2) there was some independent evidence that the
cause identified is of the type that could have been the
cause, and (3) other possible causes were eliminated as
highly improbable and the cause identified was highly
probable. The Tenth Circuit finds no abuse of discretion in
the district court's decision to admit the testimony of
plaintiff's expert witnesses.
Finally, the Tenth Circuit holds that...
To continue reading
Request your trial