Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01040/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01040-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1040

BARRY ZUCKERMAN; ARLENE ZUCKERMAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; 

LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DAVIDSON MANUFACTURING CORP LLC; DAVIDSON LADDERS NEVADA 

INC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (9:12-cv-02463-SB)

Submitted: June 22, 2015 Decided: July 6, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathleen C. Barnes, BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC, Hampton, South 

Carolina, for Appellants. Mark S. Barrow, J. Eric Cavanaugh,

Appeal: 15-1040 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 5
2

William R. Calhoun, Jr., SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, P.A., 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1040 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 5
3

PER CURIAM:

This products liability action arises from Barry 

Zuckerman’s fall from a ladder. Barry and Arlene Zuckerman 

appeal the district court’s orders excluding their expert 

witness, Dr. Kelkar; denying reconsideration of that order; and 

granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., WalMart Stores, Inc., and Louisville Ladder, Inc. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

We review a district court’s order excluding or admitting 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 

U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 161 (4th Cir. 2012). The admission of 

expert testimony is governed by Fed. R. Evid. 702, which 

provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, 

skill, experience, training, or education may testify 

in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the 

expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand 

the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the 

testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) 

the testimony is the product of reliable principles 

and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied 

the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Expert testimony rooted in “subjective belief or unsupported 

speculation” does not suffice. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 

Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993). We conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Kelkar’s 

testimony, as he failed to provide sufficient facts or data upon 

Appeal: 15-1040 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 5
4

which the district court could conclude that his opinion was 

based on reliable principles and methods. Nor did the court 

abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider this 

ruling.

Next, we review de novo a district court’s order granting 

summary judgment. Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 

780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall 

grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 568 (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In determining whether a genuine issue 

of material fact exists, we “view the facts and all justifiable 

inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to . . 

. the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). However, “[c]onclusory or speculative 

allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of 

evidence in support of [the nonmoving party’s] case.” Thompson 

v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the Zuckermans’ injuries occurred in South Carolina 

and removal to the district court was based on diversity of 

citizenship, this court applies South Carolina substantive law. 

Oglesby v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 251 (4th Cir. 1999). 

Appeal: 15-1040 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 4 of 5
5

To establish a products liability claim under South Carolina 

law, a plaintiff must show:

(1) that he was injured by the product; (2) that the 

product, at the time of the accident, was in 

essentially the same condition as when it left the 

hands of the defendant; and (3) that the injury 

occurred because the product was in a defective 

condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. 

Sauls v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 2d 499, 502 (D.S.C. 

2012). While a plaintiff may prove a products liability claim 

through circumstantial evidence, “one cannot draw an inference 

of a defect from the mere fact a product failed.” Graves v. CAS 

Med. Sys., Inc., 735 S.E.2d 650, 658 (S.C. 2012). Without 

expert testimony to show the cause of the ladder’s failure, all 

that is left is the unsupported inference that the ladder failed 

because it was defective. This is insufficient under South 

Carolina law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1040 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 5 of 5