Opinion ID: 1209844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Kadlec's Testimony

Text: In preparation for trial, Defendants' expert, Kadlec, conducted tests on a parasail chair in California. However, because Kadlec had not been informed that the accident chair had been altered, the chair tested by Kadlec did not resemble the accident chair, i.e., it did not have the aluminum bars or styrofoam seat. Instead, the chair tested by Kadlec was similar to the original pocket chair, i.e., it had a canvas-like sling (Kadlec's chair). [5] Kadlec's chair was also larger than the accident chair. The accident chair weighed approximately eighty to ninety pounds, while Kadlec's chair weighed 130 pounds. Thus, Kadlec's chair varied substantially from the accident chair. Kadlec conducted six tests on his chair, three of which were videotaped. During his tests, Kadlec did not consider what the effect of equipment failure  i.e., the breaking or dislodging of the parasail lines  would have on the chair. Based on his test results, Kadlec opined that Mami could not have been dislodged from the chair and that she had to intentionally remove herself from the chair in order for the accident to occur. Plaintiffs moved to strike all of Kadlec's testimony pertaining to his test results. The court denied the motion and admitted into evidence exhibits relating to Kadlec's tests. The jury was also shown a videotape of the tests. Contrary to the prior motion in limine and over Plaintiffs' objections, the court also allowed Kadlec to address the conclusions and opinions contained in the Coast Guard report. Kadlec testified that the Coast Guard report said there was no equipment failure and that there was no misconduct. Kadlec made at least six additional references to the Coast Guard's conclusions and opinions.