Opinion ID: 152626
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Khoury's Claim

Text: In his opening brief, Dr. Khoury presses a claim for negligent installation instead of a claim for defective design. But that is not how Dr. Khoury characterized his claim to the district court, and it is not the claim upon which the district court ruled. Any such negligence claim is, as Philips argues, waived. See, e.g., Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 52 F.3d 764, 765 (8th Cir.1995) (discussing waiver principles and holding, because the district court never passed upon this issue, we decline to consider it here). In his reply brief, Dr. Khoury characterizes the claim in his amended complaint as a design defect claim regarding the manner in which the machine was installed, using a single track system that created too much weight for a user like Dr. Khoury to safely stop once it was placed in motion. In Dr. Khoury's words, Philips got a wrongly designed installation precisely correct. That is the problem. We think what Dr. Khoury means to claimor must now say in light of his concessions during the district court's summary judgment hearing and the limited scope of the district court's orderis that Philips's single-track system for its BH5000 system is a defective design. There is no evidence in this record to indicate the BH5000 system did not operate as intended or the BH5000 system was installed in Cath Lab 5 in a negligent manner. The claim at issue in this appeal is whether Philips's single-track design in Cath Lab 5 was unreasonably dangerous. With this understanding of Dr. Khoury's claim, we examine the district court's exclusion of Dr. Andres's expert testimony.