Practice point: Plaintiff's experts' testimony was precluded as the medical and scientific literature
submitted did not support the proffered theory
that exposure to gasoline fumes caused plaintiff's birth defects. While the literature shows that some of gasoline's constituent chemicals, and presumably those chemicals' vapors, can cause
birth defects, plaintiff failed to show how exposure to those
constituent chemicals, constituted as unleaded gasoline vapors, could
have caused his injuries.
Student note: The Appellate Division determined that, as a threshold matter, the order which denied plaintiff's motion to reargue the order precluding the experts' testimony effectively granted
reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to the court's original
decision. Accordingly, it was appealable.
Case: Sean R. v. BMW of N. Am., NY Slip Op 01503 (1st Dept. 2014).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Respondeat superior.
