(9) This articleīegins with a discussion of the facts and procedure of Burley v.
Jury through the use of circumstantial evidence alone. Require expert testimony, as well as those that can be presented to a This note will discuss the types of strict liability cases that Lacked the requisite expert testimony necessary to prove the respective Testimony, (7) but a majority affirmed the circuit court'sĭismissal of the negligence and defective design claims because each (6) On appeal, the South Dakota SupremeĬourt reversed the circuit court's exclusion of the expert
(5) Moreover, on Burley's failure to warn claim, theĬircuit court found Burley's expert to be unqualified and excluded Motion for summary judgment on the negligence and defective designĬlaims. (4) In theĪbsence of expert testimony, the circuit court granted Kytec's Or that a defect existed in products liability actions. (2) Burley obtained an expertįor the failure to warn claim, but relied on admissions made by KytecĪnd inferences from the facts of the case for the negligence andĪs a general rule, expert testimony is needed to prove negligence (1) Following the accident, Burley brought suitĪgainst Kytec asserting negligence, strict liability (defective design),Īnd strict liability (failure to warn). Strength training that was manufactured and marketed by Kytec Innovative Overspeed Trainer, an athletic training device used for resistance and On April 12, 2001, Kylie Burley was injured while using the Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc.: expert testimony in strict products liability cases in South Dakota. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc.: expert testimony in strict products liability cases in South Dakota." Retrieved from
#Burley tractor pulls 2021 free#
Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc.: expert testimony in strict products liability cases in South Dakota." The Free Library.
0 kommentar(er)
