From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
939 F.2d 1106 (1992)
Facts
Albert Christophersen worked for Marathon Manufacturing Company (Marathon) (defendant) at its battery-production plant. Christophersen died from cancer. Christophersen’s wife (plaintiff) sued Marathon, alleging that Christophersen’s inhalation of fumes in the plant caused the cancer. Christophersen’s wife presented the affidavit of a single expert witness, Dr. Miller, who stated that Christophersen’s death was caused by exposure to fumes in the plant. Dr. Miller’s affidavit was based primarily on the affidavit of a Marathon employee, Edgar Manoliu, and Christophersen’s medical records. In the affidavit, Manoliu described the fumes in the plant and how often Christophersen was exposed but did not identify the type of fumes. Indeed, Manoliu admitted that he did not know the fumes’ chemical composition. In addition, the Manoliu affidavit correctly stated that Christophersen worked at the plant for 14 years, but Miller based his conclusion on an assumption that Christophersen worked at the plant for 20 years. The district court ruled that Miller’s expert testimony was inadmissible based on both Federal Rule of Evidence 703 (Rule 703) and Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordingly, the court granted Marathon’s motion for summary judgment. Christophersen’s wife appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Clark, C.J.)
Dissent (Reavley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
