Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-03055/USCOURTS-ca10-95-03055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHANE DUFFEE, minor, by and 

through guardian and next friend, 

ROSE THORNTON, 

Plaintiff- Appellant, 

FILED 

lJnittd States Court or Appeals Tenth Circuit 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

v. Nos. 95-3055 and 95-3241 

MURRAY OHI 0 MANUFACTURING 

CO., WAL-MART STORES, INC., 

and SHIMANO AMERICAN, INC., 

Defendants - Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D. Ct. No. 94-CV-4022) 

Mark W. Works, Topeka, Kansas, appearing for the Appellant. 

Donald Patterson, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, appearing for Appellees 

Murray Ohio and Wal-Mart Stores.* 

David E. Larson, Larson & Larson, Kansas City, Missouri (Randall W. Schroer 

with him on the brief), appearing for Appellee Shimano American.* 

*Appellees Murray Ohio, Wal-Mart Stores, and Shimano American filed a joint 

brief. 

Before T ACHA, MCWILLIAMS, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Appellate Case: 95-3055 Document: 01019278384 Date Filed: 08/05/1996 Page: 1 
TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

On February 21, 1992, Shane Duffee was struck by a car while riding his 

bicycle. By and through his guardian and next of friend Rose Thornton, Duffee sued 

Wal-Mart, Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, and Shimano American, Inc., 

alleging warning, design, and manufacturing defects under negligence, strict liability, 

and warranty theories. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of WalMart and Murray on all claims on February 8, 1995. The court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Shimano on all claims on July 24, 1995. After careful review 

of the record, we adopt the analysis of the district court's February 8, 1995, and July 

24, 1995, orders. 

In the February 8 order, the district court determined that testimony from 

Duffee's expert regarding the safety of the brakes on Duffee's bike was inadmissible 

under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). The 

only issue that this court must reach is the question of which standard should be used 

to review decisions to exclude expert testimony under Daubert that result in summary 

judgment. Ordinarily we review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. 

Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 50 F .3d 793, 796 (1Oth Cir. 1995). Evidentiary 

rulings, however, are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hinds v. General 

Motors Corp., 988 F.2d 1039, 1047 (lOth Cir. 1993). The Third and Eleventh 

Circuits, while acknowledging that evidentiary rulings usually receive greater 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-3055 Document: 01019278384 Date Filed: 08/05/1996 Page: 2 
deference, have nonetheless held that "when the district court's exclusionary 

evidentiary rulings with respect to scientific opinion testimony will result in a 

summary or directed judgment, we will give them a 'hard look' (more stringent 

review) to determine if a district court has abused its discretion in excluding 

evidence as unreliable." In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717,749-750 (3d 

Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); see Joiner v. General Elec. Co., 78 F.3d 524, 529 (11th 

Cir. 1996) (applying "a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge's 

exclusion of expert testimony.") The Seventh Circuit, on the other hand, has held that 

the trial judge's decision to exclude evidence under Daubert should be reviewed for 

abuse of discretion, even when that decision results in summary judgment. Buckner 

v. Sam's Club. Inc., 75 F.3d 290, 292-93 (7th Cir. 1996); see Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy 

Corp., 78 F .3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 1996). 

Daubert requires district judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure that scientific 

evidence is both relevant and reliable. Daubert, 113 S. Ct. at 2796-97. This entails 

two inquiries: whether the reasoning and methodology underlying the testimony is 

scientifically valid, and whether the reasoning and methodology can properly be 

applied to the facts. Id. at 2796. Like the Supreme Court, we "are confident that 

federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review." ld. Their decisions, 

therefore, are properly reviewed under the traditional abuse of discretion standard. 

In this case, the district judge found that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert was 

not supported by appropriate validation, and therefore was inadmissible under 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 95-3055 Document: 01019278384 Date Filed: 08/05/1996 Page: 3 
Daubert. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district judge did not 

abuse his discretion by excluding this testimony. 

We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court and 

ORDER both of the district court's orders in this case to be published. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-3055 Document: 01019278384 Date Filed: 08/05/1996 Page: 4