In Graves v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., No. 27168 (S.C. Aug. 29, 2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed a trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of three computer experts offered by plaintiffs to prove that a baby alarm had failed to go off, leading to a baby’s death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.  All three experts used a “reasoning to the best inference” form of analysis rather than conducting testing of the alarm software.  The alarm’s monitor indicated that it had gone off, but plaintiffs stated that they would have heard the alarm and awakened if it had gone off.  Accepting that testimony, all three experts reasoned that they had to eliminate “complaint error” – in other words, the possibility that the decedent’s parents actually had missed hearing the alarm – and settled upon software failure as the most likely cause of product failure.  The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, concluding that the testimony was unreliable and therefore inadmissible because it did not properly account for the possibility that the child’s parents did in fact sleep through the alarm, and the problem was complaint error rather than software error.  Because plaintiffs had no other expert testimony, the court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant.