Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
469 F.3d 675 (2006)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Mrs. Smoot (plaintiff) was driving her car at 35 to 40 miles per hour when she hit either a pothole or a piece of asphalt. The car’s airbags deployed and injured Smoot. Smoot remembered that, the day before, Mazda Motors of America, Inc. (defendant) had sent notice of a recall for airbags that were incorrectly deploying at low speeds. Smoot had set an appointment for correcting the airbags, but the accident happened prior to her appointment. Smoot sued, alleging res ipsa loquitor as the basis for her negligence claim. The trial court barred Smoot’s expert witness from testifying because the expert did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The trial court then dismissed Smoot’s case on the grounds that Smoot needed expert testimony to support Smoot’s claim of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
