Skip to Content

Case Argued by Schnader’s Carl Schaerf Featured by the Defense Research Institute

On January 31, 2009 by Schnader in Litigation

A case argued by Carl Schaerf, a partner in Schnader’s New York office, was highlighted in the “Feature Decision” section of Strictly Speaking, the newsletter of the Defense Research Institute (DRI) Product Liability Committee. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that a plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was inadmissible because there was no evidence that the accident actually occurred as the expert opined. The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a cement platform and suffered a head injury. The plaintiff had no recall of his position before the fall, yet his expert offered testimony about alterations in the platform that the expert claimed could have prevented the fall. In light of the lack of evidence of how the plaintiff actually fell, the Court held that the expert’s opinion was merely speculative and not admissible.