(dissenting in part):
¶ 19 It is with considerable trepidation in this auto mechanics-based case that I respectfully venture a differing conclusion. I concur in all respects with the majority opinion except section I.B. entitled The Clockspr-ing as the Source of the Defect. I believe that there are no valid material issues of fact *629regarding identifying the clockspring as the cause of the deployment of the airbag.
¶ 20 Defendants’ expert, Michael Cassidy, conducted a thorough analysis of the ear’s airbag system, as described in the majority opinion. That examination preceded any by Plaintiff and was performed with Plaintiffs permission. Cassidy opined that the replacement steering rack had been installed in the car sometime in the prior six months. The steering rack contained after-market parts and was incorrectly installed. The incorrect installation caused the steering wheel to ov-errotate, resulting in escalating damage to the clockspring. Cassidy further stated that, based on his inspection and testing of the ear’s airbag electrical system, the damaged clockspring caused a short circuit in the system, which in turn caused the deployment of the airbag.
¶21 Gregory Barnett, Plaintiffs expert, submitted affidavits stating his opinion that the clockspring could not have caused the problem because the Safing Switch indicated a short that could not have emanated from the clockspring. Cassidy countered that the system is incapable of displaying a message that the elockspring caused the short, even if it was the actual cause. He also stated that Barnett had cited portions of a repair manual out of context in support of his opinion and that the manual actually supported a different conclusion. Plaintiff does not repudiate Cassidy’s statements. Cassidy further provided detailed testimony about the airbag system’s operation and his professional assessment of causation, which I will not further describe.2
¶22 Although the mechanical analysis is complex, I conclude that Defendants successfully demonstrated the absence of material contested facts to preclude summary judgment in this case. I would therefore affirm.
. X believe it is also noteworthy that before Defendants performed a second inspection of the car Plaintiff had the car disassembled. In that process the elockspring was removed and damaged to the extent that it could not be further tested.