Moreover, Plaintiff has not offered evidence that he is subject to an increased risk of injury in the future. In the case of Kern ex rel. Kern v. Alfred I. Dupont Institute of Nemours Foundation, the Delaware Superior Court explained the level of detail with which plaintiffs must support their increased risk theories. No. 2C-05-001, 2004 WL 2191036, at *4 (Del.Super.Ct. Jul. 30, 2004). After reviewing a number of increased risk cases, including Anderson, the court stated:

The Delaware courts will not force individuals to serve as expert witnesses. Indeed, it has been stated that to do so would amount to a form of "involuntary servitude" with experts "being made to serve without remuneration and without [their] consent."Kern v. Alfred I. Dupont Inst. of the Nemours Found., 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 274, *at 14 (citing Montecinos v. Dickinson Medical Group, P.A., 1996 Del. Super., LEXIS 350). To prevail on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness, the plaintiff must show: (1) he had a special purpose for the goods; (2) P R knew or had reason to know of that purpose; (3) P R knew or had reason to know that the buyer was relying on the seller's superior skill to select goods that fulfilled that purpose; and (4) the plaintiff in fact relied on P R's superior skill.