The firm recently won a motion for summary judgment in a major products liability suit filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Illinois. In Clark v. River Metals et al. (3:15-CV-447), plaintiff alleged he fell from a car-crushing “baler” suffering a permanent disability to his elbow. Plaintiff alleges he incurred medical bills in excess of $270,000, and a permanent loss of wage claim in excess of $500,000. The allegations in the case included that the machine suffered from a design defect, in that it lacked adequate handrails, toeguards and a ladder, and that defendants were strictly liable. On summary judgment, the district court ruled that plaintiff’s cause of action was subject to the “risk utility test,” and that expert testimony was required. Agreeing with defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court further concluded that plaintiff’s expert could not survive a challenge under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because the expert’s opinions were not grounded in the methods and procedures of science, so as to consist of more than a subjective belief or speculation. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Read the opinion here.