Opinion ID: 1012319
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sometime prior to May, 30 1999, when Dr. Higgin-

Text: botham used the latter at issue, the ladder was bent by some force. B. The bend in the ladder was a proximate cause of the accident and, thus, of the injuries to Dr. Higginbotham. 1 Mr. Court is a naval architect marine engineer. J.A. at 1109. The district court qualified him as a mechanical engineer with knowledge of ladders in a marine context. J.A. at 1870. He is not a metallurgist, J.A. at 1116, and has no special training in the design of swim ladders. J.A. at 1242-43. 6 HIGGINBOTHAM v. KCS INTERNATIONAL J.A. at 1869. The court also considered Plaintiffs’ alternative arguments that the ladder was bent by normal ladder use or due to defective design. The district court, thereafter, entered summary judgment against the Higginbothams because there was no evidence that the alleged defect in the ladder was a proximate case of the bend. J.A. at 1869-70. We discuss the gravamen of the Higginbothams’ arguments in seriatim below. A. Normal Ladder Use The district court found inadmissible Mr. Court’s expert opinion that the bend was caused by Dr. Higginbotham’s normal use of the ladder. The court also found that even if admitted, the said opinions would not amount to evidence adequate to establish the existence of a defect in the ladder or a causative relationship between any defect and the bend at issue. J.A. at 1870. The district court properly rejected Mr. Court’s analysis which is patently laden with flaws. Most notably: Mr. Court agrees with [defense expert] Dr. Richard that the static forces applied to the ladder from normal use by Dr. Higginbotham (assumed to be a 200 pound individual) would result in an applied force of less than half of that needed to cause this bend. J.A. at 1871 (emphasis added). Mr. Court himself concedes that Dr. Higginbotham’s normal use could not have caused the bend. Indeed, by the Daubert hearing, Mr. Court had changed his opinions for a third time to the point where both experts agreed that there would only be 37.9% of the force necessary to bend the ladder visited upon it by a 200 pound man ... It would take over 62% more than that to bend it. Brief of Appellees at 21 (citing J.A. at 1804, 1807-08, 181112)(emphasis added). Mr. Court then, without any valid basis, simply jumps to the conclusion that the dynamic component of the force must have been sufficient to cause the bend. J.A. at 1871. Mr. Court reached his conclusion without performing any testing on the actual ladder at issue or even an exemplar ladder. J.A. at 1815HIGGINBOTHAM v. KCS INTERNATIONAL 7 17. And, his methodology was clearly speculative. During his deposition, Mr. Court attempted to explain his methodology, but conceded that it rested upon assumptions, not science. Q. Mr. Court, you don’t know the number of pounds that were visited by Dr. Higginbotham at any point on this ladder other than the fact that they are in excess of some point; is that right?