Business and Law Advocates

Recently, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey held that precedent.

The case involved injuries sustained when the plaintiff was seriously injured while attempting a jump on its new extreme sport vehicle (ATV) off-road. The owner’s manual warned against jumping. The vehicle also had warning labels on it, even though the jumps are not specifically mentioned on the labels.

Expert for the plaintiff expressed the opinion that the risk of injury from jumping was so great that the label should contain specific warnings against the practice.

The trial court issued a summary trial, the manufacturer of ATV, since the expert found no factual basis for his opinion.

The plaintiff appealed.

You decide: Is it not an expert authorized to give his opinion to a jury without restriction?

The Appellate Division upheld the decision of the trial judge in favor of the manufacturer. Without an adequate explanation of the factual basis, the expert’s conclusions were simply a ‘net’ opinion and inadmissible. Without such evidence, the plaintiff’s case could not succeed. Read the rest of this entry »