F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Februa ry 2 8, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1142 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00438 -CV -CO -W W ILLIAM C. BURKE, de ce as ed , Pl ai nt iff , LOLA E . BURKE, In div idu al ly

and a s e xe cu tr ix o f the e state of W illiam C. Burke, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(F eb ru ar y 28 , 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff-Appellant Lola Burke, executrix of the estate of W illiam Burke, appeals the grant of the m otion in lim ine of De fendant-Appellee Ge neral Motors Co rp or at ion( “ G MC ”) to e xc lud e Pl ai nti ff ’ s e xpe rt w itn es se s and the c onse que nt grant of sum

m ary j udgm ent dism issin g Plaintiff’ s claim s. N o reversible er ror has b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Pl ai nti ff and h er hus band, W ill iam

Burk e, w er e inj ur ed

w he n th ei r 2002 GMC Si errapi ckup cras he d i nt o atre e. Pla in ti ff s uf fere d n o s eri ou s i nju rie s. Burk e suf fe re d ve rt eb ra l f

ra ct ur es that l ef

t hi m para ly ze d f

ro m the ne ck down; h e died as a result of com

plications from

his injuries. Plaintiff’ s claim s against GMC we re f ound ed on her contention that the seatbelt and airbag sy stem s in the Sierra w er e de fe ct ive and unr ea sona bly dange ro us - - the se at

be lts w er e equip pe d w ithno pr et en sio ne r an d th e ai rb ag sy ste m w as sin gle -s ta ge a s op pose d to adua l- sta ge d ep l o ym en ts yst em -- an dth at th es e d ef ec t s we re th e p ro x i m at e c au s e o f B u rk e’s inj ur ie s and l at er

de ath. A t the ti m e of

the a cc ide nt, Burk e w as e igh ty y ears old and suffered f

rom anky losin g spon dy litis (“ AS ”), an inflam m atory disease that c au s e s th e l i g a men t s an ds o f tt i s s u e o f th e s p i n e t o h ar d e nan dc a l c i f y. Insup port of

P la int if f’ s de sig n de fe ct

c ont en tio ns, P la int if

f soug ht t o intro duc e the te sti m ony

of tw o e xpe rt

w itn es se s. T he te sti m ony of Br ian F ri st,3

M .D. wa s p ro ff

er edt o es t ab l i s h th at d es i g nd ef ec t s i nth e S i erra-- n o tBu rk e’s pr ee xis tin g c ondi tio n - - ca use d B urke ’ s e xte nsi ve inj ur ie s. T he te sti m ony of D ona ld P hil lip s, P . E . , an e ngi ne er w ithe xpe ri en ce in the de sig n and im plem entation of passeng er r estraint sy stem s, w as proffer ed to establish that Burke w ouldhave been protected fr om his devastatin g injuries if the S ierra had be en fit te d wi th sea tb el t p ret en si on ers an d adu al -s ta ge airba g s y st em . A ft er c ondu ct ing af

ull -d ay D au be rt he ar ing , D au

be rt v. Me rr el l D ow Ph arm ac eu t i ca l s In c. , 1 1 3 S. Ct . 2 7 8 6 (1 9 9 3 ), o nth e a d m i s s i b i l i ty o f P l ai n t i ff ’s expe rt s’ s te sti m ony , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that bo th e xpe rt s w er e qua lif ie d to testify com petently about m atters in the case but ruled that th e testim ony of neither expe rt w oul d a ssi st the tr ie r of

f ac t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the expe rt s’ s c onc lus ionthat an a lte rn at ive r es tr ai nt s y ste m w oul d have de plo y ed

and wo u l dh av e p re v en t edth e i n ju ri es s u s t ai n edb y th e d ec ed en td es p i t e B u rk e’s pr eex is ti ng co nd it io n was no t re li ab ly sup po rte d b y th e m et ho do lo gi es em

pl oyed. Pl ai n t i ff ar g u es th at th e d i s tri ct co u rti m p ro p er l y fo cu s edo nth e e x p er t s ’s conclusio ns and failed to analy ze properly their m ethodo logies. W e disagree. W e re view a trial court’ s rulings on adm issib ility of expert testim ony

under anabuse of

dis cr et ionstandard . G en er al E le c. Co . v. Joi ne r, 118 S . Ct . 512 , 517 (1997). A nd bin ding prece dent of this circuit m akes abundantl y clear that abuse-4

of -d isc re tio n r ev ie win the c ont ex t of the a dm iss ibi lity

of e xpe rt te sti m ony

is defere ntial: “ we m

ust affirm unless we find that the district court has m ade a c lear er ro r of j udgm en t, or

ha s a ppl ie d th e w ro ng l eg al standard . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Fr az ie r, 387 F . 3d 1 244, 125 9 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) . T he D au be rt li ne of c as es ve st th dis tr ic t c ourt’ s w ith“ co nsi de ra ble le ew ay ” w he n de ci din g to a dm it or e xc lud e expert testim ony ; our reviewis very lim ited. H all v. United Ins. Co. of Am erica , 367 F.3d 125 5, 1261 (11 Cir. 2004 ). th About the te sti m ony

of D r. F ri st, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that D r. F ri st failed to show by

scientific evidence that Burke’ s injuries w ouldhave been dif fe re nt h ad

the a ir ba g de plo y ed . B ri ef

ly state d, w hil e Fr ist

m ai nta ine d th at

37 t o 50 p er c en t of the ge ne ra l po pul at ionw oul d have sus ta ine d in j ur ie s si m ilar to Bu rk e’s i n

ju ri es -- th u s s u g g es t i n g atl ea s ts o m e p o s s i b i l i ty th at Bu rk e’s preexisting con ditio n was not the proxim ate ca use of his injuries -- this data failed to a ddr es s wha t pe rc en ta ge of the ge ne ra l po pul at iona lso suf fe rs A S an d f

ai le d to showthat the f

ai lur e of the r es tr ai nt s y ste m

im pa ct ed upo n B urke ’ s in

j ur ie s. T he m ethodo log y

e m plo y ed by F ri st and the sc ie nti fi c ev ide nc e uponw hic h he r el ie d, w er e de te rm ine d to be ins uf fi ci en tly r el ia ble to supp ort the c onc lus ion s F ri st re ac he d. A s su ch , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at F ri st’ s te sti m ony

w oul d no t as sis t the tr ie r of

f ac t.5

Ab o u tth e t es t i m o n y o f P h i l l i p s , t h e d i s tri ct co u rtco n cl u d edth at Ph i l l i p s ’s m ethodo log y

w as f law ed . I n an e ff

ort t o e sta bli sh tha t the a ir

ba g inthe 200 3 m ode l of the S ie rr a w oul d have de plo y ed ha d it be enins ta lle d inBurk e’ s 20 02 Sierr a, Phillips com

pared G MC’ s test reports on the 20 03 Sierra airbag sy stem with data fr om

Burke’ s crash. Brie fly

stated, the data wa s not readily com parable: Ph ill ips pha se -s hif

te d th e da tato el im inate the f ir st 4 0 m ill ise co nds of

da taf ro m the a ct ua l c ra sh. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at thi s de le tio n of

da ta underm ined the reliability of his testim ony . The district court questioned Ph ill ips ’ s m ethodo log y

( w hic h, a lth oughbe ing c ap ab le of be ing te ste d w as not

so tested) and questio ned also whether the m ethodo logyem ploy ed itself underm ined Ph ill ips ’ s c onc lus ion . A s su ch , P hil lip s’ s te sti m ony w oul d no t a ssi st the tr ie r of fa ct in re sol vin g w he the r the a lte rn at ive a ir ba g de sig n w oul d have de plo y ed and w he the r it w oul d have pr ev en te d B urke ’ s in j ur ie s. Un d erth e d ef

er en t i al s t an d ar do f r ev i ew ap p l i cab l e t o th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s ex er ci se of

dis cr et ion , w e se e no r ev er sib le e rr or . T he dis tr ic t c ourt pa ins takin gly an al y ze d th e pr of

fe re d e xpe rt s m ethodo log ie s and the c or re spon de nc e be tw ee n th e scientific evidence upon which the experts relied and the conclusion s about which they would opin e. Plaintiff shows us neither clear er ror in j udgm ent nor a legal standard applied wrongly . Plaintiff’ s protestation s to the contrary6

notwithstand ing, the district court perform ed its gatekeeping functio n -- as D au be rt and i ts p ro ge ny

r equir es - - “ to i nsur e that sp ec ulativ e an d un re lia ble opi nio ns d o no t r ea chthe j ur y . ” Mc Cl ai n v. Me ta

bol if e In te rn at ion al , I nc . , 401 F. 3d 1 233, 123 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no a buse of th dis cr et ionw he n it

c onc lud ed

that P la int if

f, a s pr opon en t of

the te sti m ony , f

ai le d to carr y its burden of establis hing the reliability of their experts’ s opin ions. See id. at 1238 n. 2. AFFIR MED.