Opinion ID: 767510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Avitech's Time Record

Text: 50 The plaintiff claims that 3.2 hours was insufficient time for Avitech to correctly install the right pump, clean the lines, and check the system, yet the plaintiff gives no explanation for this claim. If such an installation, cleaning, and check takes even a fast mechanic over 7 hours, for example, then the evidence would support an inference that perhaps the pump was installed but the lines were never cleaned and the system never checked. However, the plaintiff's expert never justifies the conclusory assertion that 3.2 hours was insufficient time to do the job properly. As such, the plaintiff's evidence, without more, is insufficient to preclude summary judgment on the issue of negligence. See, e.g., Boyd v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 158 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir. 1998) (For the purposes of summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), an expert affidavit must include materials on which the expert based his opinion, as well as an indication of the reasoning process underlying the opinion.); cf. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 519 (1997) ([N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.).