client joe inherits a very seriously judges juries and experts are allowed to rely on a witness and his description of events in their search of the churn with an expert can rely on  his logical reasoning in forming is opinion this is harrison's testimony as a rifle fired without the trigger being told when the safety caught in the netting camouflaging her you're bonds there is no test on the harris rifle that could we form a broken solid loctite bond because there simply wasn't enough liquid loctite to form a  bone on that was the only thing that was shown the temperature testing that was done there was criticism of powell for not doing testing although we did a lot of testing that beyond that there are other ways to prove scientifically liability other than testing that's what this court taught us in the case a valid scientific methodology can be proven through an expert straining experience answers from disputed facts and disputed to expert opinions should not be decided on summary judgment tests have limitations because they can produce balls negatives and false positives no one could be more aware of that than we are right now with the code nineteen actions bonding agent that's the reason these rifles were recalled and there are two different ways in which excess bonding leader thank you for that question it's a very good question the issue in this case and i think the trial court kind of got backwards is the issue is when the bond broke not when it was formed it's like i was a smoker we smoked till now for forty years and the doctor tells me he has cancer not the issue throughout the entire all his affidavits everything is written the court was consistent with this salary or pardon me the firearm safety release was caused by a broken lock ti and had the bond been broken when mr harris cleaned arrival in little way for the winter the year before and the temperature testing that was done very high i'm not sure that i hear you answering judge bacharach's question what i understood from mr powell deposition your experts deposition was that he c conditions had been in effect temperature wise that yes there would have been this blonde and there would have been a one time break of that cured bond and mr harris testified that he did so that he did clean the gun in two thousand and twelve so i guess i'm confused if he concedes that that would have occurred the temperature conditions were the same there would have been a break and he also concedes that it was a it's not a repeating instance i'm confused as to how there could have been another break in two thousand and thirteen it's it's it's a logical analysis he followed your honor  for the fire safety release at the time that the safety caught in th left to form a nd post under on or that's where the confusion comes from i'm ok thank you and in fact if you accept mrs harris testimony as true you have to give mrs harris testimony its full weight and remington or the undisputed facts of this can use to be the test results of the temperature test this is well than we did which is me when i said yes i don't see any think inconsistent about her statements she told the statement before her deposition wasn't it that the netting engaged  career i didn't hear your arc you repeat that please not a minute her statement outside the deposition that the netting engaged the trigger you know he the safety moved and the chair and it went off and i and when i interviewed and it's in the record i'm unfortunate i can't she admitted in a deposition that moving you that the safety into going on and on she may have just assumed that meant pulling the trigger and she couldn't confirm that at all and it was not diagnostic movie just because experts come up with different opinions based on the same facts doesn't mean that the expert should be should in all due respect we should have asked for the right to write a rebuttal report we didn't do it we didn't follow procedure but if i could follow up on i want to say there's no argument already the facts of the case were undisputed as to his original theory that being that if that rightful was stored with the safety on as point of enjoyment harry testified it was from two thousand and twelve the is manipulation of the safety that that time would have broken that bond and it never would have been really bonded and mr powell went on to testify of his deposition judge parker properly granted rimington summary judgment motion when planets lacked admissible expert opinion evidence on the essential causation element of the coin was clear that without admissible expert testimony on causation on that in mandatory exclusion under will thirty seven dollars she won unless the non disclosure was justified will harm us we talked in our brief about the poor factors to consider whether it's justified or harmless will trigger but that but that the then the gun fire and then the bonding broke then i think what you're talking about is then your question and in the deposition what well was there additional liquid lot at that boy and of course you're right the answer was no but that doesn't answer the period between two thousand and twelve and if ever two hundred and eighty two thousand the st thing that well i think we're also asking judge fire and then it would never lead bond there after that was his expressed opinions in those affidavits and then in his expert report so i think that also addresses the question of what  you just raised with me your honor but here's what the fact of the matter is what happened is after his deposition being confronted with that testimony benjamin harris whether he failed to consider it or it skipped is mind or whatever plaintiff then had a big problem they knew according to pal that bond was broken and would never we bond so then they had turned to the new theory of migrating molly colt in an effort to survive the pending  motion which the court struck as untimely for the reasons we stated earlier in addition to never having tested that there really or at least never having provided any evidence of testing that theory guess i guess i understood that that you know it wasn't necessarily contemplated a nd deposition but can you tell me why that would have been so prejudicial had the court simply order to rebuttal report if you don't prepare such a rebuttal with poor that is being away and as judge parks said on this very waiver issue at the trial court level the plaintiff of not proposed showing molly coat application in the production process pal testified in his deposition that he knew molly coke was used in the factory simply processed because he had reviewed those records sir watkins for him with your expert information and i think it's the fact that not just that molly coat was present but that it might have cured that it could cure special walk type which doesn't get you to his opinion either but that w something new at least in terms of information and i am right argument what you're saying is he could discover that him self but that was new to him in terms of information that you had presented correct that  that he stated that molly because inhibits or prohibits bonding that's what he said in his initial deposition in disgrace with it is causes loctite not eliminating particular causes he he did not he offered the opinion simply that the storage took the cure excursions when the safety was there and the socks explode and i give them to the world's greatest experts and they say i have no idea i've done all of these elaborate  there would be other issues potentially in the case you describe exploding socks what was the history of the prior storage of the socks the handling of the socks had materials gotten on them is there another alternative explanation for it so under that scenario i think expert testimony would be required in this not just permissible to say well circumstantial evidence allows it if that were the case that would apply to almost any type of product liability case for example will go all over the car well we don't know why it will build one of the cars  over a airplane coming out of the sky we don't know why but it's supposed not supposed to do that any number so that is why expert testimony is required of the specially on issues like the one at issue i pals or it wasn't the public i don't know why they the gun fired but you know everybody knows that rifles don't fire without somebody pulling the trigger but i but you answered my question but let me ask of that said in the matter can ages summary judgment well i believe the summary judgment motion went to the fact that there was no proof of a defect causing the occurrence of the testing showed that so we didn't raise the issue that on the essential element of causation they did not have admissible evidence of our subsequent motions after mr piles deposition was a motion to and and will give a careful kitchen dance we already have thank you this matter will be so that is and we'll move on to the next case