Search CompleteMarkets

... the plaintiffs failed to establish that the principle upon which their experts based their opinions were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. The expert is there to assist the fact finder' — the judge or jury. The validity of the expert's testimony depends on their professional background, education and experience, together with acceptable standards of peer review. Because the decision is often based on their testimony, they must provide relevant and reliable evidence. Federal and state judges who are responsible for validating the credentials of expert witnesses must also ensure that their testimony transcends the cloudy arena of junk science. Courts throughout the nation have adapted the Daubert tests to cases other than medical/scientific actions. One such Texas decision was the Robinson case, which involved the plaintiff's allegation that the use of a particular insecticide damaged their orchard. The court applied the Daubert standards and added the following: The extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the expert; and The out-of court-uses of the theory or technique. Another example of extending the Daubert standards is the 1998 Texas Supreme Court decision Gammill v. Williams Chevrolet, which resulted from the death of a child and severe injury to her sister. This was a products liability case against an auto dealer and the manufacturer of a vehicle that sustained a one-car accident. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment and the appeals court confirmed. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court, which considered the testimony of two plaintiff witnesses. One expert was disqualified and the testimony of the second was ruled unreliable. Federal and state courts have also ruled ...

... the plaintiffs failed to establish that the principle upon which their experts based their opinions were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. The expert is there to assist the fact finder' — the judge or jury. The validity of the expert's testimony depends on their professional background, education and experience, together with acceptable standards of peer review. Because the decision is often based on their testimony, they must provide relevant and reliable evidence. Federal and state judges who are responsible for validating the credentials of expert witnesses must also ensure that their testimony transcends the cloudy arena of junk science. Courts throughout the nation have adapted the Daubert tests to cases other than medical/scientific actions. One such Texas decision was the Robinson case, which involved the plaintiff's allegation that the use of a particular insecticide damaged their orchard. The court applied the Daubert standards and added the following: The extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the expert; and The out-of court-uses of the theory or technique. Another example of extending the Daubert standards is the 1998 Texas Supreme Court decision Gammill v. Williams Chevrolet, which resulted from the death of a child and severe injury to her sister. This was a products liability case against an auto dealer and the manufacturer of a vehicle that sustained a one-car accident. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment and the appeals court confirmed. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court, which considered the testimony of two plaintiff witnesses. One expert was disqualified and the testimony of the second was ruled unreliable. Federal and state courts have also ruled ...