May 8, 2020

Waller v. FCA USA LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 888

In a case involving liability for a faulty fuel pump in the plaintiff’s vehicle, the trial court excluded the testimony of plaintiff’s mechanical expert as “speculative” because he did not provide any rational explanation of how a faulty fuel pump could cause the power loss that occurred, and repeatedly said the fuel pump was only a possible, not the probable, cause of the power loss. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that exclusion of the expert testimony was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court's evaluation of expert testimony under Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, and held the trial court “acted within its discretion in finding that [the expert’s] opinion was speculative.” The Court of Appeal emphasized that expert testimony is only permissible if it “assists the trier of fact,” affirming the trial court’s position that “possibilities are irrelevant [to determining facts], because anything is possible.”