A New Jersey court in Shatz v. TEC Tech. Adhesives, 415 A.2d 1188, 1194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980), determined that an expert on the properties of the product could testify on the adequacy of warnings: While it is true that the judge could find that [the proffered expert] had no special expertise in the actual writing of labels, certainly his knowledge of the product was sufficient to permit him to state a conclusion as to the adequacy of the warnings. . . . To know the sufficiency of warnings it is not necessary to be a writer [of warnings]. An Indiana court made a similar ruling that whether a witness has "special training or experience in reading and writing warnings ... is not the test" for whether the witness is qualified to give an expert opinion o 528 (D.P.R. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Cummins v. Lyle Industries, 93 F.3d 362 (7th
holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings holding that witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation of adults and juveniles holding that a lay witness could not offer opinion testimony that required technical or specialized knowledge of what security measures could or should have been taken to prevent a crime holding that the standard of care applicable to a reasonable pharmaceutical company marketing product after minimum testing and without a warning does not entail specialized knowledge or skill unique to a scientific discipline and beyond the knowledge and experience of the average jury holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge