Legal Opinion
Goodridge v. Hyster Co.
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided April 2, 2004No. 268,2003PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEELE, Justice:
The plaintiffs, Harold and Stephanie Goodridge sued Hyster Company, NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc., Modern Group, Ltd. and Modern Handling Equipment Co. to recover damages resulting from an injury sustained in a forklift accident at Harold’s workplace. 1 Defendants successfully moved in limine to bar the expert testimony of plaintiffs’ only identified expert witness. The trial judge ruled that the expert was not qualified to offer an opinion about forklift design and that his proffered testimony would not assist the jury in any meaningful way. We agree and affirm.
I
On…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. John W. DowningCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le BeauSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
- Eskin v. CardenSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Henry v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
- Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2013
- Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPSupreme Court of Delaware · 2007
- McNally v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2009
- General Motors Corp. v. GrenierSupreme Court of Delaware · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.