LPLA plaintiff doesn't always need expert

In Malbrough v. Crown Equipment Corp., filed yesterday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit held that the Louisiana Products Liability Act does not contain "a per se requirement of expert testimony in all design defect cases ..." The manufacturer had won a motion in limine excluding plaintiff's expert because of plaintiff's failure to meet discovery deadlines. But the district court denied the manufacturer's follow-up motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing its decision in Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 184 (5th Cir. 1990):

"There may be cases in which the judge or jury, by relying on background knowledge and 'common sense,' can 'fill in the gaps' in the plaintiff's case" and thus understake the utility balancing required by the LPLA without the aid of expert testimony.

Posted by RPW at November 24, 2004 10:57 AM