|
P0948 The opinion of an expert that tire separation resulted from a defect in the tire was properly excluded as speculative in view of his admission that he had never seen the tire but had based his opinion solely on amateurish Polaroid pictures and his belief that all tires of this particular model were defectively designed, although he knew that fewer than one percent of them had tread separation problems; once that testimony was excluded, the opinion of an expert who said that loss of control of the vehicle can result from tread separation was also properly excluded for lack of foundation.CitationSTEPHEN v FORD (Tread Separation) 134 CA4 1363 [See: EvC 402; Barker v Lull 20 C3 413; Soule v GM 8 C4 548, T/AT 11/94; Lockheed Cases 115 CA4 558, P/AT 3/04]
|
|
