Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of fires and explosions and electrical equipment failures, specifically in the causes of electrical fires. Id. He has performed several hundred investigations “involving consumer products, wiring and cabling, medical devices, and residential, commercial, and industrial electrical equipment.” Id. Hamilton Beach objects to the qualification of Wald, asserting that he would be testifying outside of the scope of his expertise because he has never been involved in the manufacture or design of toasters. Hamilton Beach Memo. (Dkt. No. 18) at 10. However, there is no requirement that an expert have manufacturing or design experience with a particular device to qualify as an expert about the design of that device. See, e.g., DaSilva v. Am. Brands, Inc., 845 F.2d 356, 361 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Wald’s education and experience in electrical 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of mechanical engineer in products liability case involving automobile because expert did not have specific experience regarding subject matter of lawsuit (B) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for district court to allow a mechanical engineer to give expert testimony about a machine with which the engineer had no design experience (C) holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony (D) holding opinion testimony of civil engineer expert that movement of foundation was caused by seasonal moisture not plumbing leak was sufficiently reliable (E) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
Output (English): holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of mechanical engineer in products liability case involving automobile because expert did not have specific experience regarding subject matter of lawsuit