This appeal arises from a most unfortunate, unintended, and unwitnessed death. Dr. Alan Sandifer was pierced in the head by the cable guard of his 2007 Hoyt Vulcan XT500 bow, which he was examining, and possibly modifying, while at his home. Following his death, his family members . . . (“the Sandifers”) . . . filed suit against Hoyt Archery, Inc.  .  .  . The Sandifers brought this action under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) alleging that the compound bow was defectively designed. 

Questions 

1. Why did the court conclude that Dr. Kelkar’s expert testimony was not reasonably reliable? 

2. Do you agree that granting Hoyt’s motion for summary judgment was necessary based on the partial exclusion of Dr. Kelkar’s expert testimony? Explain. 

3. Dodge slipped leaving work and claimed she suffered knee, ankle, and back injuries. Dodge sued the workplace cleaning service, but she provided no expert testimony to establish that the fall caused the injuries. Rather Dodge provided her own explanation of the fall and resulting injuries. Did the trial court err in admitting Dodge’s layperson testimony? Explain. See Dodge-Farrar v. American Cleaning Services Co., 54 P.3d 954 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002).