United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. STIVERS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion in
Limine (DN 59), Defendant's Motion in Limine (DN 60), and
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DN 61).
The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons
outlined below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion in Limine is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS
action involves non-fatal injuries suffered by Plaintiff
Bobby Severe (“Severe”) when a truss he was
installing in a barn on his property collapsed. (Compl.
¶¶ 5, DN 1-1). Severe had built several houses and
other structures including barns and had installed several
trusses in his lifetime. (B. Severe Dep. 10:13-14, 13:18-23,
24:7-10, July 19, 2017, DN 60-4).
day of his accident, Severe was attempting to set a truss
purchased from Defendant Middle Tennessee Truss Company, LLC
(“MTTC”). (M. Severe Dep. 12:22-24, Aug. 30,
2017, DN 64-2). When Severe stepped out on the truss to nail
a “jig” to it, the truss collapsed “just
like when you unzipped your britches.” (Willis Dep.
12:19-13:4, 16:1-5, 17:1-4, May 30, 2018, DN 64-5). Severe
has no recollection of the events immediately preceding or
following the accident. (B. Severe Dep. 40:7-41:21).
filed this action in state court asserting claims of
negligence and strict liability against MTTC. (Compl.
¶¶ 7-13, DN 1-1). Subsequently, MTTC removed the
case to this Court. (Notice Removal, DN 1).
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there is complete diversity between
the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
Motions in Limine
parties have filed competing motions in limine relating to
the respective opposing expert witnesses. Under Fed.R.Evid.
403, “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of one
or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid.
403. The admissibility of scientific evidence is governed by
Fed.R.Evid. 702, which provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and ...