United States Seventh Circuit

In a suit against the company that installed a piece of equipment that injured plaintiff on his job, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the magistrate judge hearing the case had jurisdiction over the dispute; 2) the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add punitive damages; 3) the district court properly exercised its discretion in finding that plaintiff's proposed experts were not reliable and therefore properly rejected their tendered expert testimony; 4) plaintiff was not entitled to a reopening of discovery; 5) plaintiff failed to develop evidence sufficient to meet his burden of proof at trial for his product liability claim; and 6) judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's negligence claim was appropriate since the injury was outside the installation process and therefore outside of defendant's duty as established by its contract.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/01/2006
• Decided 08/22/2007
• Published 08/22/2007

Judges

• KANNE, Circuit Judge., Before KANNE, EVANS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert B. Ramsey (argued), Brent, Coon & Associates, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Dennis E. Rose (argued), Donovan, Rose, Nester & Szewczyk, Belleville, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.