In a product liability case, Segal McCambridge partner Pete Swayze obtained summary judgment in a Minnesota Federal Case for an OTC cold medicine manufacturer. Plaintiffs brought several claims against the defendant because of their resultant loss of smell and taste after using Defendant's product. Defendant cited that a double-blind, random, clinical trial was administered before the product went on the market and not one of the 59 participants using the actual medicine developed similar conditions. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs could not prove causation and succeeded in having the Court exclude the testimony of the Polskis' expert witness. Defendant established that the expert witness was using a theory about the actual use and effect of the product that had not been tested and which could therefore not be substantiated, based on Fed. R. Evid. 702. Because the expert witness testimony was excluded, Plaintiffs would not be able to establish causation at trial. Therefore, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the summary motion filed by Defendant and dismissed Plaintiffs first amended complaint with prejudice and on the merits.
To view the opinion of Polski v. Quigley, please click here.