it's we're asking that the district court summary judgment ruling the reverse in this matter sent back to the district court the substantive issue relates to the district court's ruling that pointis experts were unreliable even in the context of the summer each actually we review the district court's decision to exclude expert scientific testimony for abuse of discretion so although we have the file the order we have  discretionary so so why was the district court's exclusion of this record excluded hofmann's testimony because his his specific theory was that the release hand hit the back of the front seat and he said you have no evidence fact well let me answer you just going to this question if i mean because i think it touches on that what what how this case differs is that in this case hoffman when you tease out his opinion and not just focus on one or two sentences from the middle of his report for example what he's saying is that the car seat is defective because it has a latching handle that's not protected against the danger of being inadvertently actuated in an accident he does that things are helpful to know but that when i actually read the reports in his deposition testimony and he says that over and over with regard to his opinion that the most likely most likely cause was striking the back of the front didn't he didn't do you other experts also say one of them at least i can exclude the mother or the the woman being the person who hit the the seat because she had seatbelt injuries on her and therefore she couldn't have gone into the back and therefore it must have been some if it wasn't the seat it must have been something loose in the car the reason i'm asking this is because i can find no basis on which the judge could exclude mr hoffman's testimony that this was a defective seat because it had an exposed release that absolutely m made whether or not he could have excluded his testimony on the cause of the accident i want to take up separately but he was he was an expert he had qualifications his position was that this exposed lach poses a danger right in and said he says i think the danger that it posed was it hitting the seat in the seat it the other two people say not so sure in the seat but it does explode it does have a danger because other stuff can hit it and the thing only explanation given by the other side the woman is not possible in our view like together even if you exclude the rest of mr hoffman's testimony by causation why doesn't that get you to a jury obviously we think that does  opinion on causation right you're answering the first question the first part of that question is that even flo asserted that expert testimony was necessary and that wasn't disputed in the opposition of summary judgment and that made sense because the pointis were putting forth the injuries not disputed i think you need your only evidence of what let me just ask the question i have said your only evidence of causation was the expert testimony of the three experts  correct did you submit any other evidence well yet know all the evidence i'm pretty sure i could be wrong about some things but all of the evidence was interpreted by the experts and came in through the experts all the photographs so so in this point if we had my source haitian in the nevada substantive law a product defect includes the barker versus low engineering concept  predictable an unexpected malfunction of a consumer good creates sufficient evidence of causation when there's a defect yes the substantive defect and acted in an unexpected way the consumer would not expect and therefore caused injury is that not sufficient under barker versus loves on the second prong you are so your honor i'm not that to relate it to your gas let's assume you have a consumer product that comes loose through a rollover there's well i talk about is that enough well i talk about it why are you sad yet i argued that and i talked about it in the context of the use of circumstantial evidence to prove defect or negligence so and there are cases for example if the airbag goes off in the car at low speeds you don't need an expert to say that that  is it's a defective product some things are so obvious if the thing doesn't work if the jury can say whatever that thing is supposed to do it's not supposed to do that as a matter of common sense and that's enough and that makes sense to me that th area of the case where the theory of the case is that something hit the release lover and that a car seat should not function that here's the difference we're going to use circumstantial absolutely that is something that we don't have to prove well i think that you raise that theory a minority took language out of hoffman's testimony that when you read the testimony i mean it was pretty clear that his theory was that hit the back of the front seat i mean that was what the gist or court was focusing on your didn't because the car seat didn't operate the way it's supposed to in terms of the release the release handle did exactly what it's supposed to which is was improperly placed in your right and protected i mean it worked it did exactly what it's supposed to do which is if something hits it presses it activates it it releases the seat is it's not supposed to do that and roll over i'm going reserve the rest of my time suggest that he's flat room and here's why this is true you can apply the dover analysis when the methodology of the expert is not scientific i'm paraphrasing  here the methodology of mr hoffman was very traditional he looked at photographs he looked at he used his own expertise as far as hoffman's methodology if you're really relying on seven o two you must tell me what bizarre methodology did dr hoffman use in coming to this conclusion the opinion of mr hoffman because the methodology is so bizarre it's junk science what was the junk science the doctor hoffman or mr hoffman used you couldn't find any data to support and it was hot but often it was the it is because i didn't have any doubt or he looked at the photographs he said here's some deaf or mation of the passenger front seat here is the handle which loosens the car seat he clearly focused on to come up with a almost certainty about his opinion was was challenged and he completely retracted from that in his sworn deposition testimony and he  admit that was just an assumption he admitted he didn't know how the seat moved in this x so happy know what would have released the handle well the phrase his conclusion different ways sometimes he was more certain sometimes he was  reject off man's opinion that this was a defective we design c because the release handle was exposed and therefore subject to forces during an ordinary rollover accident i think there's a basis whether that was  is there anybody any why should his testimony about a defective design be inadmissible readies testimony yes qualifications he says what happens in rollover accident is that things come back and touch the seat and if they do and the what why why should one how can how can a judge exclude that testimony i want to turn to causation center well there was no peer reviewed literature supporting that there were no test that support that he couldn't point to you looked at a random sampling of every test test done by your manufacturer and in fifty percent of the cases to see him lose that's that's incorrect that's not that's not correct or i was wrong about he said in fifty percent of cases the felt that there would be contact with the front seat at least they had evidence because they're one of their experts said this would do is sort of differential diagnosis it wasn't the woman flying through the car because she had her seatbelt on he says i found seatbelt injuries on is my opinion that she wasn't flying through the car to cause this and therefore it must have been cause the other experts say you know we we would defer to mr hofmann but we're not so sure he's right but something mu objected to me asking if he had an opinion about what caused the release and they said we're not designating him for that we're talking smith will address the biomechanical field and not necessarily this isn't a function of why the least and that was way that the woman flying through the car could cause the i'm looking at your three or four or nine there is no way she can apply or significant load compared to what's been tested to and judge looked at the other opinions to see whether they were deferring to hofmann which they clearly did on those issues you but that doesn't he couldn't be clearer that he doesn't your theory of the case is that the woman in the car hit it injured lives their theory of the case is something else must have hit the release mechanism they proffer an expert to say i don't know what caused it but i know it wasn't the woman because she had received and also she couldn't have done just sufficient forces doesn't that sort of differential diagnosis if it wasn't the woman and something else in the car hit it because the because the release mechanism was exposed does not make their case based on what why products defect cases in nevada that's a part of the factors in my view would apply in that circumstance i can see how it could apply in that circumstance so then i guess your answer to him is yes it does apply depending on the facts of the case my answer is yes it is very fact intensive and when you have a four role event like this everybody lysaght da so to presume that you know to the extent you have anybody where you would crush a car beyond any belief and you wouldn't expect i'm not talking about crushing question is it comes loose during a rule is that not an unexpected result from a consumer reasonable something activated the handle is not possible to have an opinion the guard over the handle would have prevented that you would have to look at the sort of seasons actually that's what hofmann said  very quickly it to excerpt the record going to page two fifty that's where john smith is very clear in his eye to your two fifty he's very clear in his opinion to result aggrieved engineering certainty that the handle was pushed releasing it now there's been test there's been talk about testing what kind of testing do you need to do to show that the handle the release handle functioned exactly is it supposed to function when you push it that seat gets released from the base so on that point i think the testing issue is a red herring so here's the thing you have to show cause ation in the sense of something hitting th i'm not saying that i'm saying the experts are necessary perhaps probably necessary very helpful in explaining certain things dr hot dr hofman goes into his examination of the car seat and the locking mechanism to show that