Legal Opinion
Coffey v. Dowley Manufacturing, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided December 18, 2003No. 02-5454PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MERRITT, Circuit Judge.
The district court dismissed this products liability case due to the requirement for expert testimony in order for the fact finder to understand the case and the inadmissibility of the expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court’s opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 29, 1998, plaintiff-appellant Daniel Coffey was injured while using an automotive repair tool called the Super Hub Shark manufactured by defendantappellee Dowley Manufacturing, Inc. Coffey alleges that while he was attempting to use the tool…
2Cases cited6 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
- prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 12,741 Diane Goins, Administratrix of Bessie Mae Sheppard, Deceased v. The Clorox Company Boyle-Midway Household Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Ray Ex Rel. Holman v. BIC Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1996
- Jackson v. General Motors Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Indiana Insurance v. General Electric Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2004
- Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Autozone, Inc. v. Glidden Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010
- On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.