Court Opinion

ID: 9814951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:18:34.977384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:00.869839
License: Public Domain

COOK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Unquestionably, this is a close case. Unquestionably, Butts lost the use of two fingers, affecting his livelihood as a roofer. And unquestionably, Butts lost those fingers using the SpotShot in a reasonably foreseeable manner. That afternoon, his fellow roofers pried his damaged fingers from the gun after they heard what sounded like a gun shot. With no genuine dispute that the SpotShot injured Butts, the district court ought to have subjected the science and methods underpinning his experts’ opinions to the rigors of a DaubeH hearing. Neither Federal Rule of Evidence 702 nor Ohio’s design-defect statute requires experts to recreate the plaintiffs injury in order to opine about its causes or foreseeability. Thus, I respectfully dissent.