Concise Daubert analysis is distinct from conclusory Daubert analysis, and therefore is analyzed for abuse of discretion.
Merely establishing the qualifications of the expert is insufficient; the principles and methods used must be analyzed as well. Expert testimony involving theories that had not been tested on that type of machine were within the discretion of the court to exclude, even given subsequent remedial measures by deft. Expert testimony as to causation legitimately excluded, since the expert was speculating as to the amount of weight that caused the machine to unbalance; there was no requirement to let the question of causation go to the finder of fact, since the court has a gatekeeper function with expert testimony.
Absent expert testimony, the strict liability defective design claim didn't present a genuine issue of material fact for trial, since consumer expectations are insufficient objective proof when it comes to industrial machines.