In Rupert v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-331 (W. D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in which defendant argued that plaintiff’s proffered expert witness was not qualified as an expert in auto safety because he lacked an engineering license and his proffered opinions were not sufficiently reliable to merit admission into evidence under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The court held that the proffered expert’s forty years of work with automobile safety design qualified him as an expert even though he was not a licensed engineer. Nevertheless, the court held his opinions concerning the alleged design defect lacked sufficient reliability to satisfy Daubert, as they were based on his general observations and experience in the industry, rather than testing or specific detailed information. Without expert support, the court held the plaintiff could not survive summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.