Bonnie Weisgram died from smoke inhalation during a fire in her home. Her son, Chad Weisgram, sued Marley, the maker of a heater, claiming it was defective and caused the fire. At trial, Weisgram offered expert witness testimony to prove that the heater was defective. Marley objected that the testimony was unreliable and therefore inadmissible, but the judge overruled the objections; the jury found for Weisgram.
The appeals court held that the testimony of Weisgram's expert was not scientifically sound.
The appeals court directed a judgment for Marley, holding that there were no grounds for a new trial. Weisgram appealed; does he have a good reason for a new trial? [Weisgram v. Marley Co., 120 S. Ct. 1011 (2000)]