Gary Rodgers wrote:

But this may be a legitimate claim.

I never said that this was an illegitimate claim or that the jury verdict was incorrect.  It may well be correct -- just like a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.

My point was that the issues at trial here are very complex engineering questions with no clear cut answers.  Maybe a group of smart engineers with a background in the relevant areas could hear what experts with competing opinions (and competing financial interests) have to say and make their own judgment based on their technical knowledge.  However, I do not trust juries of lay people to make such judgments.  Someone with no technical background can be very easily bamboozled by irrelevant data, or data that appeals to their "common sense" while actually supporting exactly the opposite conclusion than what the application of common sense would suggest.

Hamid