A suit against a car dealership involving a vehicle rollover will be reinstated after the state Superior Court found that the trial court lacked sufficient information to determine the plaintiffs’ expert report was legally incompetent.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the court ruled May 29 in Hunter v. General Motors that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas lacked sufficient information to determine that an expert’s three-page report was inadequate prior to trial. Writing for the majority, Judge John T. Bender said that because the discovery rules only require a party to submit a summary report of the expert’s testimony, the expert should have been allowed to testify at trial. He further said that alternatives less severe than invalidating the report and precluding the expert were available if the court questioned the report’s adequacy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
