071015P.pdf   11/14/2007  Steven Menz  v.  New Holland North America
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-1015
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - products liability. For the court's prior opinion in the case
   see Menz v. New Holland N. Am. Inc., 440 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2006). 
   District court did not err in concluding that a lay jury would lack the
   experience and knowledge necessary to determine causation on plaintiffs'
   failure to warn claim and that expert testimony was required to establish
   the claim; here, summary judgment was proper because plaintiffs' expert
   testified there was no warning defendants could have give plaintiff that
   would have altered his conduct; even if expert testimony was not
   required, summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' strict liability
   failure to warn claim was proper, as there was no non-expert evidence
   that additional information or a warning would have altered the plaintiff's
   conduct at the time of the accident; summary judgment was also
   appropriate on plaintiffs' defective design claim as plaintiff failed to
   show he was injured as a direct result of a defective condition that existed
   when the tractor was sold; in absence of any scientific reconstruction of
   the accident, plaintiffs' conclusion that the tractor's instability caused 
   the accident was mere conjecture and speculation.