ÿWPC.@ ¢ÁS1±•УTœ£RoF ^ §@–?h@8IƒTØ™Q(oV=ê@q<¥“\[Г,jë0]úÉÁ3tÞœ»+ǥĕðkñì·] ¡uÇõãF´Öч”˜Ç{ â½1¶(^N>7‹‡³#”tÓØµoã+ºþŠ6ëÚ< rÂW¶7üH›jFǪÃü ³ÝutâO§Â$œa„Íu/Çðסø‚‘¼}‚õÝmükêaCh¶wDÎ'Þ!”K$&UƒaßµZEú‡uwíë6kÜøüõ¢j¿d‹ÊÆK`lS’å1ð°zŸ¼ “¾¦øði㋚Džþ¦yeè/fúÓÒ_¾ÜúNjš¾t£9!‡((9la,Ý4™;U¦iŸé’5á)vQ=ÆÙTç ªƒ7{HS‚n^„÷W7΀½¢fÀ'ìêÒÊ „>/Yàxtèvyšî¾¶fŠ•P ÈE`â°×«Û"ˆe±¯Çì17q€.™ÏRº­›Þí„6k¤zªl¨ßŒ‡mƶõ8ð3å/YœáÀ¸W‡ã‹FÞUòF ÎÛ˜!üYUHD ·ÂíÞOã`¸#k»µaÞöÄŠ—gÅeÁ…îQúæâe ñs™>)»ÙŽWG©€L#Á( %é 0Dï 0(3U:[ 0Æ•UN[ nT© Ný U>ÿ ^ = wI 4M a p mr E‰ f‹ a N¡ UB£ bå Ùí µÆ Æ o{{{{{jêêFTyšH z['['[' BÕ)Õ)ò)Û ,ë5˜ó5`‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:‹:Cë<˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2yX$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€Ý ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔGary€W.€Guidi,€the€Avery€maintenance€supervisor€to€the€pressÐ ° Ðat€the€time€of€the€explosion,€testified€as€follows:Ð xÈ ÐÌà8  àQ.€At€some€point€did€you€release€the€Bobst€workers?ÐXÐ Ð  Ðà8  àA.€Yeah.€€I€mean,€July€4th€is€„„€we€kind€of€called€it€aÐ Ð  Ðday€and€figured€we'd€come€back€and€start€reducing€thingsÐ ˜è Ðto€practice€and€finish€up€whatever€needed€to€be€done.Ð` °Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€So,€on€July€3rd,€when€Mr.€Verhoeven€[a€BobstÐ ( x Ðtechnician]€left,€that€was€with€your€blessing;€right?Ðð @Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA.€That's€correct.и  Ð Ð  Ðà8  à*€*€*Ѐ Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQ.€And€I€just€want€to€determine€what€the€status€was€ofÐ H ˜  Ðthe€electronic€work€at€the€end€of€July€3rd,€when€Mr.Ð `  ÐVerhoeven€left.€€Was€it€completed?ÐØ( Ð Ð  Ðà8  àA.€€I€would€say,€you€know,€the€terminations€were€done.€Ð  ð  ÐThe€equipment€was€at€a€point€where€it€could€be€reduced€toÐ h¸  Ðpractice.€€Find€out€any€„„€you€could€reduce€to€practice,Ð 0€  Ðfind€any€other€issues€that€may€crop€up,€and€you€know,€seeÐ øH  Ðwhat€happened€from€that€point.€€It€wasn't€to€the€pointÐ À  Ðwhere€you€could€say€this€press€is€finished€and€let's€runÐ ° Ðthis€press.ÐxÈÐ Ð  ÐÌòòHochenóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBobstÔ_Ô€Group,€Inc.óó,€No.€96„11214„RBC,€Transcript,€vol.€IVÐ X Ðat€51„52€(D.€Mass.€May€18,€2000). pÝ ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€suit€was€originally€filed€by€Ô_ÔIsmaelÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHochenÔ_Ô€in€MiddlesexÐ ° ÐSuperior€Court€in€March€1996.€€In€April€1996,€the€complaint€wasÐ xÈ Ðamended€to€add€the€Ô_ÔDufaultÔ_Ô€family.€€In€June€1996,€Ô_ÔBobstÔ_Ô€removed€theÐ @ Ðcase€to€federal€court€pursuant€to€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€1332€and€1446.€€€ d Ý ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€have€mentioned€òòsupraóó€and€delineate€further€in€sectionÐ ° ÐIII,€the€magistrate€judge€correctly€excluded€Harwood's€expertÐ xÈ  Ðtestimony€on€the€upgrade„related€claims,òòóó€so€that€ultimatelyÐ ° Ðappellants€have€presented€no€admissible€expert€testimony€on€any€ofÐ xÈ Ðtheir€claims. Ñ Ý ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€we€may€rule€on€the€sufficiency€of€appellants'Ð ° Ðexpert€testimony€at€the€appeals€stage€and€need€not€give€appellantsÐ xÈ Ðthe€opportunity€to€cure€the€deficiency€in€the€expert€reports€byÐ @ Ðremanding€to€the€district€court.€€In€òòÔ_ÔWeisgramÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòMarley€Co.óó,€528Ð X ÐU.S.€440€(2000),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€appeals€court€couldÐ Ð  Ðenter€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€for€a€verdict€loser€on€appeal,Ð ˜è Ðwhere€the€verdict€winner's€evidence€became€insufficient€after€theÐ ` ° Ðcourt€of€appeals€determined€that€certain€evidence€should€not€haveÐ ( x Ðbeen€admitted.€€The€Court€found€"unconvincing€[plaintiff's]€fearsÐ ð @ Ðthat€allowing€courts€of€appeals€to€direct€the€entry€of€judgment€forÐ ¸   Ðdefendants€will€punish€plaintiffs€who€could€have€shored€up€theirÐ € Ð  Ðcases€by€other€means€had€they€known€their€expert€testimony€would€beÐ H ˜  Ðfound€inadmissible."€€òòId.óó€at€455„56.€€The€Court€pointed€out€thatÐ `  Ðthe€plaintiff€had€been€"on€notice€every€step€of€the€way"€thatÐ Ø(  Ðdefendant€was€challenging€his€experts,€but€that€plaintiff€had€madeÐ  ð   Ðno€attempt€to€cure€the€deficiency.€òòId.óó€at€456.€€Although€theÐ ° Ðprocedural€posture€of€this€case€is€different€„„€the€trial€courtÐ xÈ Ðnever€ruled€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€plaintiffs'€expert€testimonyÐ @ Ðas€to€the€product€defect€claims€„„€we€believe€that€the€sameÐ X Ðprinciple€holds€here.€€Appellants€had€been€put€on€notice€by€Ô_ÔBobstÔ_ÔÐ Ð  Ðas€to€challenges€to€their€expert€in€several€objections€andÐ ˜è Ðoppositions€filed€by€Ô_ÔBobstÔ_Ô€to€Ô_ÔHarwoodÔ_Ô's€qualifications€andÐ ` ° Ðtestimony.€€We€therefore€see€no€unfairness€to€appellants€in€ourÐ ( x Ðcurrent€ruling.€€Additionally,€appellants€conceded€at€oral€argumentÐ ð @ Ðthat€we€need€not€reach€the€statute€of€repose€question€if€the€expertÐ ¸   Ðopinion€on€the€claims€in€question€was€determined€to€be€inadequate.  ŽÝ ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAppellants€have€argued€that€the€magistrate€judge's€findingsÐ ° Ðon€this€point€were€inconsistent€and€contradictory,€in€that€theÐ xÈ Ðmagistrate€judge€stated€that€he€was€not€finding€that€Harwood€"wasÐ @ Ðunqualified€to€have€obtained€the€necessary€knowledge€and€to€giveÐ X Ðopinion€testimony€about€the€machine,"€but€rather€that€Harwood€hadÐ Ð  Ðnot€demonstrated€that€"he€had€gained€the€requisite€degree€ofÐ ˜è Ðknowledge€and€familiarity€with€the€machine€so€as€to€be€able€toÐ ` ° Ðrender€reliable€testimony."€We€see€no€inconsistency€in€thisÐ ( x Ðstatement.€€The€magistrate€judge€reasonably€determined€that,Ð ð @ Ðalthough€Ô_ÔHarwoodÔ_Ô€could€have€acquired€the€familiarity€with€the€pressÐ ¸   Ðnecessary€to€make€his€testimony€admissible,€the€voir€dire€hearingÐ € Ð  Ðdemonstrated€that€he€had€failed€to€do€so. VÝ ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€magistrate€judge€does€not€appear€to€haveÐ ° Ðrelied€on€the€exclusion€of€the€expert€testimony€in€determining€thatÐ xÈ ÐÔ_ÔBobstÔ_Ô€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€magistrateÐ @ Ðjudge's€discussion€of€the€expert€testimony€follows€his€discussionÐ X Ðof€the€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòóó 9Ý ƒyX$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€2QX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that,€as€with€the€design€defect€claims€arising€outÐ ° Ðof€Ô_ÔBobstÔ_Ô's€activities€in€1971€and€1972,€the€alleged€causalÐ xÈ Ðrelationship€between€Ô_ÔBobstÔ_Ô's€activities€in€1994€and€the€accident€isÐ @ Ðcomplex€and€thus€appropriately€the€subject€of€expert€testimony.€Ð X ÐòòÔ_ÔGofredoÔ_Ôóó,€520€N.E.2d€at€1318„19.€€In€the€absence€of€Ô_ÔHarwoodÔ_Ô'sÐ Ð  Ðexcluded€testimony,€appellants€have€not€presented€any€expertÐ ˜è Ðevidence€on€this€issue.Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€XwÉXXXÔÔ€°«i°XXwÉÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„ „°°«iÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€ „f4„„„ ÔÔ€ X2QX„ „f4ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ÷ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<s ` AßÐ t Ä ÐÌÌNo.€00„1841Ð  c ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ ìàÔ_ÔISMARÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHOCHENÔ_Ô,€AS€ADMINISTRATOR€OF€THE€ESTATE€OF€Ô_ÔISMAELÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHOCHENÔ_Ô;Ð £ ó  ÐRICHARD€Ô_ÔDUFAULTÔ_Ô;€CHRISTINE€Ô_ÔDUFAULTÔ_Ô,€INDIVIDUALLY€AND€AS€MOTHERÐ k »  ÐAND€NEXT€FRIEND€OF€RICHARD€Ô_ÔDUFAULTÔ_Ô,€JR.;€LEAH€Ô_ÔDUFAULTÔ_Ô,Ð 3ƒ  ÐÓKÓÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ à  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ S£  ÐÌà@´´!ìàÔ_ÔBOBSTÔ_Ô€GROUP,€INC.,ˆÐ ã3 ÐÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÐ sà ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<` AßÐ S ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ Ú* ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ jº ÐÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Douglas€P.€Ô_ÔWoodlockÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ úJ ÐÓ  Ó[Hon.€Robert€B.€Ô_ÔCollingsÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€Magistrate€Judgeóó]Ð Â ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Q` AßÐ R¢ ÐÌà@@„„'ìàBeforeÐ )y  ÐÌà@@((ìà€Ô_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð ¹ " ÐÔ_ÔStahlÔ_Ô,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð Ñ# Ðand€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð I ™$ ÐÌÌßA€') °°` dE< "` AßÐ ¡"ñ' ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòJanet€H.€Ô_ÔPumphreyÔ_Ôóó€for€appellants.Ð x#È) Ðà  àòòJohn€J.€St.€Andreóó,€òòSt.€Andre€Law€Officesóó,€òòMichael€K.€Ô_ÔGillisÔ_Ôóó,Ð @$* ÐòòÔ_ÔGillisÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔBikofskyÔ_Ô,€PCóó,€òòMatthew€P.€Ô_ÔMcCueÔ_Ôóó,€and€òòÔ_ÔMirickÔ_Ô,€O'Connell,Ð %X + ÐÔ_ÔDeMallieÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔLougeeÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó,€on€brief€for€Massachusetts€Academy€of€TrialÐ Ð% !, ÐAttorneys,€amicus€curiae.Ð ˜&è!- Ðà  àòòKevin€G.€Ô_ÔKenneallyÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòJohn€A.€Donovan,€Jr.óó€and€òòDonovanÐ `'°". ÐÔ_ÔHatemÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó,€were€on€brief,€for€appellee.Ð ((x#/ ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ €*Ð%2€*Ð% ‹‹ÐÓ5 ÓÐ SIä*4&3 àAâ@37391„„‰àAâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMay€16,€2002Ð ¬+ü&5 ÐÐ RHCt,Ä'6" àAâ@37391 àAâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(ä*4&7  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÐ l-¼(7? ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€2QXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSTAHL,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeó óóó.€€Plaintiffs„appellantsÐ ° ÐIsmael€Hochen€("Hochen")€and€Richard€Dufault€("Dufault")€wereÐ à Ðinjured€on€August€2,€1994,€as€a€result€of€an€explosion€in€aÐ  p Ðprinting€press€at€their€place€of€employment,€Avery€DennisonÐ °  ÐCorporation€("Avery").׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Hochen€and€Dufault€subsequently€broughtÐ @  Ðsuit€against€defendant„appellee,€the€Bobst€Group,€Inc.€("Bobst"),׃$°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð   Ðclaiming€liability€for€negligence,€failure€to€warn,€and€breach€ofÐ `°  Ðwarranty,€in€connection€with€Bobst's€activities€related€to€theÐ ð@  Ðprinting€press€in€1971€and€1972€and€in€1994.€€In€separate€rulings,Ð €Ð  Ðthe€district€court€granted€Bobst's€motions€for€(1)€partial€summaryÐ ` Ðjudgment€on€all€claims€arising€out€of€its€activities€in€1971€andÐ  ð Ð1972;€(2)€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€breach€of€warranty€andÐ 0€ Ðfailure€to€warn€claims€arising€out€of€Bobst's€activities€in€1994;Ð À Ðand€(3)€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€remaining€negligenceÐ P  Ðclaims.€€Appellants€now€ask€us€to€review€the€first€and€thirdÐ à0 Ðrulings€as€well€as€the€district€court's€decision€to€excludeÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€by€their€expert€witness.€€We€affirm.Ð  P  ÐÓ  ÓI.€BACKGROUNDÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àIn€1971€and€1972,€Bobst€designed€and€constructed€theÐ @ Ðpress€in€question,€Press€8€(the€"press"),€following€Avery's€customÐ Ð  Ðspecifications€and€requirements,€and€installed€it€at€Avery'sÐ ` ° Ðfacilities€in€Framingham,€Massachusetts.€€The€press,€which€printedÐ ð @ Ðlabels€for€a€variety€of€products,€weighed€38€tons,€wasÐ € Ð  Ðapproximately€85€feet€in€length,€and€was€affixed€to€the€plant'sÐ `  Ðfloor,€ceiling,€walls€and€various€utility€systems.€€It€operated€inÐ  ð  Ðthe€following€way:€€A€spool€of€paper€„„€the€"web"„„€after€enteringÐ 0€  Ðthrough€an€"infeed,"€was€pulled€through€a€number€of€print€stations,Ð À Ðand€rewound€after€passing€through€an€"outfeed."€€The€outfeed€pulledÐ P  Ðthe€web€through€and€the€infeed€followed.€€In€the€process,€the€paperÐ à0 Ðwas€inked€and€then€moved€through€a€gas€powered€dryer€beforeÐ pÀ Ðreaching€the€outfeed.€€Highly€flammable€solvents€were€used€to€keepÐ P Ðthe€printing€ink€liquid.Ð à Ðà ` àIn€1994€Avery€undertook€a€project€to€upgrade€the€press.€Ð  p ÐAlthough€Avery€decided€to€conduct€the€upgrade€with€in„houseÐ °  Ðemployees,€it€requested€that€Bobst€send€field€technicians€to€theÐ @" Ðplant€for€several€days€to€work€on€the€installation€of€two€usedÐ Ð $ Ðpieces€of€equipment,€an€S„1480€Registron€control€system€(the€"S„Ð `"°& Ð1480")€and€an€R„820€infeed€electronic€system€(the€"R„820€infeed").Ð ð#@( ÐThe€S„1480€was€an€electronic€registration€device€that€helpedÐ €%Ð * Ðidentify€the€relative€position€to€each€other€of€successive€colorsÐ '`", Ðbeing€printed€on€a€label€and€adjusted€the€print€cylinders€to€ensureÐ  (ð#. Ðtheir€proper€alignment.€€The€R„820€infeed€electronic€system€was€aÐ 0*€%0 Ðpart€of€the€infeed€that,€along€with€a€companion€R„820€outfeedÐ À+'2 Ðsystem,€controlled€the€tension€of€the€paper€web€as€it€passedÐ ° Ðthrough€the€press.€€For€the€press€to€operate€correctly,€the€sameÐ @ Ðtension€of€the€web€had€to€be€maintained€throughout€the€entireÐ Ð  Ðprinting€process.€€Tachometers€on€the€press€measured€web€speed€andÐ ` ° Ðsent€voltage€signals€that€allowed€different€parts€of€the€press€toÐ ð @ Ðoperate€in€a€synchronized€fashion.€€Bobst€technicians€installed€oneÐ € Ð  Ðtachometer€as€part€of€a€component€of€the€S„1480€called€an€auto„Ð `  Ðsequencer.€€The€parties€disagree€as€to€whether€Bobst€had€a€duty€toÐ  ð  Ðsynchronize€the€voltage€signal€of€this€tachometer€with€the€voltageÐ 0€  Ðsignals€of€other€devices€on€the€press€„„€and€specifically€with€theÐ À Ðvoltage€signal€from€a€tachometer€in€the€outfeed€unit€„„€and€as€toÐ P  Ðwhether€the€auto„sequencer€was€intended€to€be€operational€at€all€atÐ à0 Ðthe€time€of€the€installation.Ð pÀ Ðà ` à€The€Bobst€technicians€worked€at€Avery€from€approximatelyÐ P ÐJune€26,€1994€to€July€3,€1994.€€The€parties€strongly€contest€howÐ à ÐBobst's€services€during€this€period€should€be€characterized.€Ð  p ÐAppellants€argue€that€Bobst€was€hired€to€install,€start€up,€andÐ °  Ðdebug€the€S„1480€and€R„820€infeed€because€they€were€the€"experts"Ð @" Ðon€these€devices.€€Bobst€counters€that€its€field€technicians€wereÐ Ð $ Ðhired€only€to€fill€in€a€labor€shortage€arising€out€of€vacationsÐ `"°& Ðtaken€by€Avery's€own€employees€and€that€Avery€intended€to€completeÐ ð#@( Ðthe€work€with€its€own€electricians€and€tradesmen.€€In€any€case,€theÐ €%Ð * Ðrecord€indicates€that€Avery€discharged€Bobst's€technicians€shortlyÐ '`", Ðbefore€the€4th€of€July€weekend,€at€a€time€when€the€press€was€notÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âoperational,€telling€them€that€they€would€be€called€back€if€needed.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àOn€August€2,€1994,€an€explosion€in€the€press€injuredÐ ° Ðâ âHochen€and€Dufault.€€Appellants€brought€suit€against€Bobst,Ð @ Ðalleging€that€Bobst€was€liable€for€negligence,€failure€to€warn,€andÐ Ð  Ðbreach€of€warranty€in€connection€with€its€activities€involving€theÐ ` ° Ðdesign€and€installation€of€the€press€in€1971€and€1972€and€involvingÐ ð @ Ðthe€upgrade€in€1994.€€With€regard€to€the€1994€upgrade,€appellants'Ð € Ð  Ðtheory€was€essentially€that€Bobst€failed€to€correct€voltageÐ `  Ðproblems€with€the€press's€tachometers,€leading€to€problems€with€webÐ  ð  Ðtension.€€Avery€employees€testified€that,€on€the€day€of€theÐ 0€  Ðexplosion,€the€web€had€so€much€slack€that€it€was€dipping€into€oneÐ À Ðof€the€ink€pans€before€shooting€into€the€dryers€and€appellantsÐ P  Ðargued€that€the€flammable€solvents€in€the€ink€caused€the€explosionÐ à0 Ðin€the€dryer.€€However,€the€record€evidence€indicates€that€thereÐ pÀ Ðwere€other€problems€with€the€press€on€the€day€of€the€explosion,Ð P Ðincluding€the€fact€that€fan€blades€in€the€exhaust€fan€above€theÐ à Ðprint€unit€where€the€explosion€occurred€had€been€installedÐ  p Ðbackwards€by€Avery€employees,€preventing€solvents€from€beingÐ °  Ðexhausted€out€of€the€dryer.Ð @" Ðà ` àOn€December€5,€1997,€the€district€court€granted€Bobst'sÐ Ð $ Ðmotion€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€all€claims€arising€out€ofÐ `"°& Ðany€deficiency€or€neglect€by€Bobst€in€the€design,€construction,€orÐ ð#@( Ðinstallation€of€the€press€in€1971€and€1972,€holding€that€theseÐ €%Ð * Ðclaims€were€barred€by€Massachusetts's€six„year€statute€of€repose,€Ð '`", ÐMass.€Gen.€L.€ch.€260€ðð€2B,€concerning€improvements€to€real€estate.€Ð  (ð#. ÐòòHochenóó€v.€òòBobst€Group,€Inc.óó,€No.€€96„11214„DPW,€R.€Doc.€56€(D.Ð 0*€%0 ÐMass.€Dec.€5,€1997).€€Ô‡X2QXX X2QÔThe€parties€thereafter€consented€to€proceedÐ À+'2 Ðbefore€a€magistrate€judge€for€trial€and€entry€of€judgment€pursuantÐ ° Ðto€28€U.S.C.€ðð€636(c).Ô#† X2QXXX2Q%0#Ô€€On€May€10,€2000,€the€magistrate€judgeÐ @ Ðfurther€entered€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Bobst€on€the€breach€ofÐ Ð  Ðwarranty€and€failure€to€warn€claims€related€to€Bobst's€activitiesÐ ` ° Ðin€1994.€€òòHochenóó€v.€òòBobst€Group,€Inc.óó,€No.€96„11214„RBC,€R.€Doc.Ð ð @ Ð234€(D.€Mass.€May€10,€2000).€€Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àThe€negligence€claims€relating€to€the€1994€upgrade€„„€theÐ `  Ðonly€claims€to€survive€the€two€summary€judgment€motions€„„€went€toÐ  ð  Ðtrial€before€a€jury€in€May€2000.€€On€May€19,€2000,€in€a€benchÐ 0€  Ðruling,€the€magistrate€judge€excluded€the€testimony€of€appellants'Ð À Ðexpert€witness,€Daniel€Harwood,€on€these€claims€and€granted€Bobst'sÐ P  Ðmotion€for€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€issue€of€negligence,Ð à0 Ðthereby€disposing€of€the€case.€€òòHochenóó€v.€òòBobst€Group,€Inc.óó,€No.Ð pÀ Ð96„11214„RBC,€R.€Doc.€264€(D.€Mass.€May€19,€2000).Ð P Ðà ` àHere,€appellants€ask€us€to€review€three€of€the€districtÐ à Ðcourt's€rulings:€(1)€the€order€granting€summary€judgment€to€BobstÐ  p Ðon€claims€held€to€be€barred€by€the€statute€of€repose;€(2)€theÐ °  Ðruling€excluding€testimony€by€appellants'€expert€witness;€and€(3)Ð @" Ðthe€ruling€granting€Bobst's€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matter€of€lawÐ Ð $ Ðon€the€negligence€claims.€€Appellants€do€not€appeal€the€summaryÐ `"°& Ðjudgment€ruling€in€favor€of€Bobst€on€the€breach€of€warranty€andÐ ð#@( Ðfailure€to€warn€claims€related€to€Bobst's€activities€in€1994.€WeÐ €%Ð * Ðaffirm€the€exclusion€of€the€expert€witness€testimony€and€the€grantÐ '`", Ðof€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€1994€negligence€claims.€€WeÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âalso€affirm€the€district€court's€1997€grant€of€summary€judgment€inÐ 0*€%0 Ðfavor€of€Bobst€on€the€claims€arising€out€of€Bobst's€activities€inÐ ° Ð1971€and€1972,€but€on€grounds€other€than€the€statute€of€repose.Ð @ Ðâ âÓ  ÓII.€CLAIMS€ARISING€OUT€OF€1971„1972€ACTIVITIESÐ Ð  ÐòòóóÓ  Óà ` àOn€appeal,€Bobst€contends€that€the€statute€of€reposeÐ ` ° Ðquestion€is€moot.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Bobst€argues€that,€even€if€we€were€to€findÐ ð @ Ðthat€the€statute€of€repose€does€not€bar€appellants'€claims€arisingÐ € Ð  Ðout€of€the€design,€manufacture,€and€installation€of€the€press€inÐ `  Ð1971€and€1972,€the€claims€must€fail€because€appellants€neverÐ  ð  Ðdesignated€any€relevant€expert€opinion€testimony.€€Such€designationÐ 0€  Ðis€required€under€Rule€26(a)(2)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CivilÐ À ÐProcedure.€€Without€the€qualified€expert€opinion€testimony,€BobstÐ P  Ðargues,€appellants€could€not€submit€their€claims€to€the€jury,€evenÐ à0 Ðif€we€were€to€remand€the€case€for€retrial€as€to€their€1971€and€1972Ð pÀ Ðclaims.€€Ð P Ðà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€agree€with€Bobst€thatÐ à Ðappellants€failed€to€designate€any€expert€testimony€on€anyÐ  p Ðpurported€design€defects,€manufacturing€defects,€or€breaches€ofÐ °  Ðwarranties€in€the€original€design,€manufacture€or€construction€ofÐ @" Ðthe€printing€press€or€its€components.€€A€fair€reading€of€theÐ Ð $ Ðreports€filed€by€Harwood€is€that€they€speak€only€to€allegedÐ `"°& Ðnegligence,€failure€to€warn,€or€breach€of€warranty€claims€stemmingÐ ð#@( Ðfrom€Bobst's€role€in€the€upgrade€of€the€press€in€1994.׃)°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€DespiteÐ €%Ð * Ðtheir€protestations€to€the€contrary,€neither€in€their€briefs€nor€inÐ ° Ðoral€argument€have€appellants€pointed€us€to€any€sections€of€theÐ @ Ðfiled€expert€reports€that€could€be€characterized€as€raising€anÐ Ð  Ðissue€related€to€the€1971„1972€design,€construction,€andÐ ` ° Ðinstallation€of€the€press.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àÔ‡X2QXX X2QÔAlthough,€under€Massachusetts€law,€expert€testimony€mayÐ € Ð  Ðnot€be€required€in€cases€where€the€jury€can€find€a€design€orÐ `  Ðmanufacturing€defect€based€on€the€testimony€of€the€injured€or€ofÐ  ð  Ðco„workers,€here€the€nature€of€the€defect€or€breach€of€warranty€andÐ 0€  Ðits€causal€relation€to€the€accident€were€complex€and€thusÐ À Ðappropriately€the€subject€of€expert€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòGofredoóó€v.Ð P  ÐòòMercedes„Benz€Truck€Co.óó,€520€N.E.2d€1315,€1318„19€(Mass.€1988).€€Ô#† X2QXXX2QNB#ÔWeÐ à0 Ðaccordingly€hold€that€appellants€cannot€succeed€on€their€claims€ofÐ pÀ Ðalleged€deficiency,€neglect€or€breach€in€the€design,€manufacture,Ð P Ðand€installation€of€the€press€in€1971€and€1972€and€decline€to€reachÐ à Ðthe€issue€of€the€statute€of€repose.׃*è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р p ÐÓ  ÓIII.€NEGLIGENCE€CLAIMS€ARISING€OUT€OF€1994€ACTIVITIESÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àIn€order€to€succeed€on€a€claim€of€negligence€at€trial,Ð @ Ðappellants€were€required€to€establish€that€(1)€Bobst€owed€them€aÐ Ð  Ðduty€of€care,€(2)€Bobst€breached€that€duty,€and€(3)€Bobst's€breachÐ ` ° Ðof€the€duty€caused€the€injury€to€appellants.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavisóó€v.€òòWestwoodÐ ð @ ÐGroupóó,€652€N.E.2d€567,€569€(Mass.€1995).€€The€dispute€between€theÐ € Ð  Ðparties€has€centered€on€whether€Bobst€had€a€duty€to€synchronize€theÐ `  Ðvoltages€of€the€various€components€of€the€press€and,€if€so,€whetherÐ  ð  ÐBobst's€failure€to€do€so€was€the€cause€of€the€explosion€thatÐ 0€  Ðinjured€appellants.€€Appellants€ask€us€now€to€find€first€that€theÐ À Ðmagistrate€judge€abused€his€discretion€in€excluding€testimony€byÐ P  Ðtheir€expert€witness,€which€was€directed€to€the€issues€of€duty€andÐ à0 Ðcausation.€€Second,€appellants€argue€that,€even€without€the€expertÐ pÀ Ðtestimony,€they€had€made€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligence€thatÐ P Ðshould€have€been€submitted€to€the€jury.€€Ð à Ðò òA.€Exclusion€of€Expert€Testimonyó óÐ  p Ðà ` àAt€trial,€appellants€offered€testimony€by€Harwood€toÐ P  Ðsupport€their€claims€of€negligence€by€Bobst€in€its€activitiesÐ à" Ðrelating€to€the€1994€upgrade€of€the€press.€€Harwood's€testimonyÐ  !p$ Ðwould€have€addressed,€first,€the€scope€of€the€work€assigned€toÐ ° ÐBobst€by€Avery,€and,€second,€the€cause€of€the€explosion€in€the€gasÐ @ Ðdryer.€€On€the€first€issue,€the€magistrate€judge€held€thatÐ Ð  ÐHarwood's€testimony€as€to€what€the€Bobst€technicians'€work€ordersÐ ` ° Ðmeant€was€irrelevant€because€the€terms€should€be€interpreted€fromÐ ð @ Ðthe€perspective€of€a€field€technician€and€not€from€the€perspectiveÐ € Ð  Ðof€an€engineer.€€As€to€the€second€issue,€the€magistrate€judge€heldÐ `  Ðthat€Harwood's€testimony€with€respect€to€the€press€was€not€reliableÐ  ð  Ðbecause€"the€testimony€is€not€based€on€a€sufficient€knowledge€ofÐ 0€  Ðthe€machine."€Ð À Ðà ` àRule€702€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence€assigns€to€theÐ P  Ðtrial€judge€the€responsibility€for€ensuring€that€an€expert'sÐ à0 Ðtestimony€as€to€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specializedÐ pÀ Ðknowledge€"both€rests€on€a€reliable€foundation€and€is€relevant€toÐ P Ðthe€task€at€hand."€€òòDaubertóó€v.€òòMerrell€Dow€Pharm.,€Inc.óó,€509€U.S.Ð à Ð579,€597€(1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòKumho€Tire€Co.óó€v.€òòCarmichaelóó,€526€U.S.Ð  p Ð137,€147„49€(1999)€(holding€that€òòDaubertóó€applies€to€expertÐ °  Ðtestimony€as€to€technical€and€other€specialized€knowledge€inÐ @" Ðaddition€to€scientific€knowledge).€€"The€ultimate€purpose€of€theÐ Ð $ ÐòòDaubertóó€inquiry€is€to€determine€whether€the€testimony€of€the€expertÐ `"°& Ðwould€be€helpful€to€the€jury€in€resolving€a€fact€in€issue."€Ð ð#@( ÐòòCipolloneóó€v.€òòYale€Indus.€Prod.,€Inc.óó,€202€F.3d€376,€380€(1st€Cir.Ð €%Ð * Ð2000).€€à ` àWe€accord€the€trial€court€broad€deference€in€itsÐ '`", Ðdetermination€as€to€the€reliability€and€relevance€of€expertÐ  (ð#. Ðtestimony,€reviewing€the€determination€only€for€abuse€ofÐ 0*€%0 Ðdiscretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòGen.€Elec.€Co.óó€v.€òòJoineróó,€522€U.S.€136,€143Ð À+'2 Ð(1997);€òòDiefenbachóó€v.€òòSheridan€Transp.óó,€229€F.3d€27,€29€(1st€Cir.Ð ° Ð2000).€€Appellants€nevertheless€urge€us€to€find€that€the€magistrateÐ @ Ðjudge€abused€his€discretion€in€excluding€Harwood's€testimony.€€WeÐ Ð  Ðdecline€to€do€so.€€First,€a€review€of€the€extensive€voir€direÐ ` ° Ðhearings€held€by€the€magistrate€judge€establishes€that€HarwoodÐ ð @ Ðshowed€little€knowledge€in€the€fields€of€fires€and€explosions.€Ð € Ð  ÐSecond,€although€we€are€mindful€of€appellants'€position€thatÐ `  ÐHarwood's€expertise€in€electronic€controls,€and€not€in€explosions,Ð  ð  Ðconstituted€his€essential€contribution€to€explicating€thisÐ 0€  Ðindustrial€accident,€the€voir€dire€hearing€transcript€is€repleteÐ À Ðwith€substantial€challenges€to€Harwood's€knowledge€of€theÐ P  Ðelectronic€controls€of€the€specific€press€in€question€here.€€InÐ à0 Ðthis€context,€€we€cannot€say€that€the€magistrate€judge€abused€hisÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€in€excluding€Harwood's€testimony€as€to€causation.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РP ÐFinally,€on€the€question€of€the€proper€perspective€from€which€theÐ à Ðwork€orders€were€to€be€interpreted,€where€the€record€indicates€thatÐ  p Ðthe€work€on€the€R„820€and€the€S„1480€was€assigned€by€AveryÐ °  Ðemployees€with€backgrounds€as€electricians€or€in€electronics,Ð @" Ðcarried€out€by€Bobst€employees€with€similar€training€andÐ Ð $ Ðexperience,€and€approved€by€the€same€Avery€employees,€testimony€byÐ ° Ðan€engineer€as€to€the€meaning€of€the€terms€would€have€been€ofÐ @ Ðquestionable€"relevan[ce]€to€the€task€at€hand."€€òòDaubertóó,€509€U.S.Ð Ð  Ðat€597.€€Again,€we€cannot€say€that€the€magistrate€judge's€decisionÐ ` ° Ðto€exclude€Harwood's€testimony€on€this€issue€was€an€abuse€ofÐ ð @ Ðdiscretion.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€magistrate€judge's€ruling.Ð € Ð  Ðò òB.€Grant€of€Judgment€as€a€Matter€of€Lawó óÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€third€ruling€appellants€contest€is€the€grant€in€favorÐ ð@  Ðof€Bobst€of€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law,€pursuant€to€Rule€50(a)€ofÐ €Ð  Ðthe€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€on€the€negligence€claimsÐ ` Ðarising€out€of€Bobst's€work€on€the€press€in€1994.€€Appellants€argueÐ  ð Ðthat,€even€without€the€expert€testimony,€they€made€out€a€primaÐ 0€ Ðfacie€case€of€negligence€that€should€have€been€submitted€to€theÐ À Ðjury.׃-×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€magistrate€judge€found€that€the€appellants€had€failedÐ P  Ðto€introduce€sufficient€evidence€as€to€the€duty€and€causationÐ à0 Ðelements€of€their€negligence€claim.€€The€magistrate€judge€ruledÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€jury€could€find€that€a€proximate€cause€of€the€explosionÐ P  Ðwas€the€web€slack,€leading€to€the€ink„drenched€web€entering€theÐ à" Ðdryer.€€However,€the€magistrate€judge€found€(1)€that€appellants€hadÐ  !p$ Ðfailed€to€prove€that€Bobst€had€an€obligation€to€correct€any€voltageÐ °"& Ðproblems€the€press€may€have€had€and€(2)€that,€even€if€Bobst€had€anÐ @$( Ðobligation€to€correct€any€problems,€appellants€offered€no€evidenceÐ Ð% !* Ðthat€the€un„synchronized€voltage€was€a€proximate€cause€of€the€webÐ ° Ðslack.€€Ð @ Ðà ` àWe€review€the€grant€of€a€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matterÐ Ð  Ðof€law€de€novo.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrennanóó€v.€òòGTE€Gov't€Sys.€Corp.óó,€150€F.3d€21,Ð ` ° Ð25€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€Applying€the€same€standard€as€the€districtÐ ð @ Ðcourt,€we€examine€the€evidence€and€all€fair€inferences€in€the€lightÐ € Ð  Ðmost€favorable€to€the€non„movant€and€determine€whether€the€non„Ð `  Ðmovant€has€offered€"more€than€a€mere€scintilla€of€evidence,"Ð  ð  Ðwarranting€the€submission€of€the€issue€to€the€jury.€€òòKatzóó€v.€òòCityÐ 0€  ÐMetal€Co.,€Inc.óó,€87€F.3d€26,€28€(1st€Cir.€1996)€(internalÐ À Ðquotations€omitted).€€We€"'may€not€consider€the€credibility€ofÐ P  Ðwitnesses,€resolve€conflicts€in€testimony,€or€evaluate€the€weightÐ à0 Ðof€the€evidence.'"€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòRichmond€Steel,€Inc.óó€v.€òòPuertoÐ pÀ ÐRican€Am.€Ins.€Co.óó,€954€F.2d€19,€22€(1st€Cir.€1992)).€€We€willÐ P Ðaffirm€the€district€court€only€if,€"applying€these€standards,€theÐ à Ðevidence€does€not€permit€a€reasonable€jury€to€find€in€favor€of"Ð  p Ðappellants.€€òòBrennanóó,€150€F.3d€at€26.€€Ð °  Ðà ` àOn€the€question€of€duty,€appellants€urge€us€to€find€thatÐ @" Ðthe€magistrate€judge€took€too€narrow€a€view€of€Bobst's€role€in€theÐ Ð $ Ðupgrade€of€the€press.€€The€magistrate€judge€found€insufficientÐ `"°& Ðevidence€that€Bobst€had€any€obligation€to€work€on€the€tachometer€inÐ ð#@( Ðthe€outfeed,€which,€in€the€state€in€which€it€had€been€left,Ð €%Ð * Ðallegedly€would€have€sent€a€voltage€signal€to€devices€in€the€S„1480Ð '`", Ðand/or€R„820€infeed€that€was€inconsistent€with€the€signalsÐ  (ð#. Ðgenerated€by€those€devices.€€Appellants'€argument€is€essentiallyÐ 0*€%0 Ðthat,€whether€or€not€Bobst€had€an€obligation€to€work€on€otherÐ À+'2 Ðtachometers€within€the€press,€they€"had€a€duty€to€install€the€S„Ð ° Ð1480€and€R„820€infeed€onto€Press€8€and€to€check€out,€debug,€andÐ @ Ðstart„up€the€press"€and€"[i]n€so€doing,€they€needed€to€ensure€thatÐ Ð  Ðall€the€components€of€the€press€worked€together€electronically."€€Ð ` ° ÐAppellants€point€out€that€Bobst€had€been€provided€with€theÐ ð @ Ðelectronic€drawings€that€came€with€the€used€equipment€and€contendÐ € Ð  Ðthat€Bobst€should€have€been€alerted€to€a€potential€problemÐ `  Ðconcerning€the€compatibility€of€the€S„1480€and€R„820€electronicsÐ  ð  Ðwith€the€rest€of€the€press.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àWe€find€that€appellants€have€not€produced€"more€than€aÐ À Ðmere€scintilla€of€evidence"€in€support€of€their€theory€of€duty€andÐ P  Ðthat€they€therefore€cannot€withstand€a€motion€for€judgment€as€aÐ à0 Ðmatter€of€law.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€First,€the€record€does€not€support€the€argumentÐ pÀ Ðthat€Bobst€had€an€obligation€to€synchronize€the€electronic€controlsÐ P Ðof€the€press.€€Appellants€have€directed€us€to€several€segments€inÐ à Ðthe€depositions€and€trial€testimony€that€allegedly€support€theÐ  p Ðposition€that€Bobst€had€an€obligation€to€ensure€that€the€electronicÐ °  Ðsystems,€as€a€whole,€were€compatible.€€Much€of€the€cited€testimony,Ð @" Ðhowever,€simply€stands€for€the€proposition€that,€in€order€for€theÐ Ð $ Ðpress€to€run€properly,€the€electronics€on€the€various€devices€hadÐ `"°& Ðto€be€synchronized,€and€not€for€the€proposition€that€Bobst€was€theÐ ð#@( Ðparty€with€the€obligation€to€ensure€that€these€electronics€wereÐ ° Ðsynchronized.€€Even€where€the€testimony€suggests€that€Bobst€mayÐ @ Ðhave€had€an€obligation€to€check€out€the€electronics€on€the€S„1480׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðand€the€R„820€infeed,€we€find€nothing€that€could€be€consideredÐ ` ° Ð"more€than€a€mere€scintilla€of€evidence"€to€the€effect€that€BobstÐ ð @ Ðwas€required€to€synchronize€the€voltage€signals€on€these€systemsÐ € Ð  Ðwith€voltage€signals€coming€from€other€devices€on€the€press.׃è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `  Ðà ` àSecond,€even€acknowledging€that€the€record€of€depositionsÐ  ð  Ðand€testimony€is€voluminous€and€the€issue€at€hand€complex,€so€thatÐ 0€  Ð"more€than€a€mere€scintilla€of€evidence"€suggesting€appellants'Ð À Ðtheory€of€duty€could€conceivably€be€uncovered,׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€find€that€anyÐ P  Ðduty€Bobst€may€have€had€as€to€the€electronics€of€the€system€endedÐ ° Ðwhen€Avery€discharged€the€Bobst€technicians€on€July€3òòóó.€€We€are€notÐ @ Ðpersuaded€by€appellants'€argument€that€Bobst€should€have€noticedÐ Ð  Ðthe€voltage€problem€and€worked€to€correct€it€from€the€beginning€ofÐ ` ° Ðits€work,€so€that€it€makes€no€difference€that€Bobst€may€have€beenÐ ð @ Ðterminated€before€the€completion€of€the€work.€€To€the€contrary€„„Ð € Ð  Ðand€regardless€of€how€the€parties€may€have€understood€the€termsÐ `  Ð"debug"€and€"start„up"€in€the€Bobst€work€orders€„„€the€recordÐ  ð  Ðcannot€be€read€to€support€any€position€other€than€that,€when€theÐ 0€  ÐBobst€technicians€were€discharged€on€July€3òòóó,€Avery€recognized€thatÐ À Ðthe€work€on€the€press€was€not€complete,€that€the€press€was€notÐ P  Ðready€to€be€used,€and€that€Avery€would€be€responsible€for€makingÐ à0 Ðsure€the€press€functioned€as€a€whole.׃#x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð pÀ Ðà ` àBecause€we€agree€with€the€magistrate€judge€thatÐ ° Ðappellants€have€not€presented€"more€than€a€mere€scintilla€ofÐ @ Ðevidence"€in€support€of€a€duty€on€the€part€of€Bobst€to€synchronizeÐ Ð  Ðthe€voltage€signals€coming€from€the€various€devices€on€the€press,Ð ` ° Ðwe€need€not€reach€the€question€of€whether€they€presented€sufficientÐ ð @ Ðevidence€on€the€question€of€causation.׃Kx×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€affirm€the€grant€ofÐ € Ð  Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€negligence€claims€against€BobstÐ `  Ðarising€out€of€its€role€in€the€1994€upgrade.Ð  ð  ÐÓ  ÓIV.€CONCLUSIONÐ 0€  ÐÓ  Óà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€òòaffirmóó€(1)€the€grant€ofÐ À Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Bobst€on€all€claims€arising€out€of€itsÐ P  Ðactivities€in€1971€and€1972;€(2)€the€ruling€excluding€testimony€byÐ à0 Ðappellants'€expert€witness;€and€(3)€the€grant€of€judgment€as€aÐ pÀ Ðmatter€of€law€in€favor€of€Bobst€on€the€remaining€negligence€claims.Ð P Ðòòà ` àCosts€to€appellee.óó