The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content

In Olivero v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, United States, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin-based Trek Bicycle Corporation alleging that a defective product caused the Plaintiff serious injury. The lawsuit was filed in the state of Colorado. According to the Plaintiff’s complaint, the fork on the front of his bicycle catastrophically failed due to what he believes to be a manufacturing error, leading to a serious bicycle accident. He and his wife filed suit against Trek Bicycle Corporation on the grounds of product liability, negligence, breach of warranty and loss of consortium.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Rule 702 Motion to Exclude the Opinion’s of the Defendant’s Expert. The Expert claims that the accident was not caused by a manufacturing defect, but instead by a foreign object lodging in the Plaintiff’s front spokes, causing the bicycle to stop suddenly. The Expert further claimed that this sudden stop led to pressure that caused the bike’s fork to fail. The Expert then opines that regardless of the failure of the fork, the bicycle would still have pitched forward, leading to the Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the Expert claims, Trek Bicycle Corporation is not at fault for the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Admission of expert testimony is governed by aforementioned Rule 702, which states:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The Plaintiffs asserted that because of the Expert’s failure to analyze the failed fork scientifically, rather than simply visually, that the Expert’s testimony was inadequate. However, the Court has decided to deny the Plaintiff’s attempt to have the Expert’s opinions ruled inadmissible.

Comments for this article are closed.