The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision affirmed the District Court’s exclusion of the Plaintiffs’ expert, the well known Steven Syson, and the subsequent entry of summary judgment. In Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp. 10-6011 (10th Circ. 12-15-2010) Mrs. Graves was injured when she thought she placed the car’s shifter in “park” but in fact put it in “reverse”. When she stepped out of the car, it rolled backwards and ran over her. Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Syson, did not provide any data or industry standard, or conduct any testing, to confirm his view that merely described how the shifter works, noting the size of each detent between “drive” and “park”. He then leaped directly to the conclusion that the design failed to allow for smooth shifting and, therefore, it is defective and unreasonably dangerous. Affirming the exclusion of Syson’s testimony, the Court of Appeals said,
“In the end, then, while the District Court and we appreciate and recognize Mr. Syson’s credentials and don’t doubt the value someone in his field can bring to defective design cases, the evidence he proffered in this case, rests on no more than his say so – and that isn’t good enough to require its admission. “Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence” based on only “the ipse dixit of the expert” however well qualified he may be. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 157.( P.6-7)