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 trap of blaming the messenger for sending the wrong message. It's the same with companies. Without exception, companies develop a picture or view of themselves that becomes their "message." Polaroid went out of business carrying the banner of instant photography, while Kodak dodged the same bullet by proclaiming itself "the imaging company." Figuring out the right message is the marketing mission. Without it, trouble lies ahead. 7. Being seduced by the new. The new and different is always appealing in business. Salespeople pant and plead for new products. They complain they can't make sales without them, thus revealing that they're more dependent on having something new to sell than they are on selling expertise. Marketers can fall into this same "latest and greatest" trap. Racing through the orchard picking off the ripe fruit is the common sales strategy. It's far easier than taking time and effort to uncover new applications and markets for existing products. Companies without a strong marketing component are addicted to always having what's new; while those with marketing support focus on ways to penetrate markets and find new applications for their products. Cutting-edge thinking is more valuable than having a cutting-edge product. Becoming dependent on a company's ingenuity, knowledge, and expertise might be more beneficial in creating a sales culture over the longer term than chasing the latest widget. And that's what marketing brings to the table. A good example is Oreck, the vacuum company. It's the same vacuum and the same message, year after year; only the add-on items change. That's marketing. CONCLUSION The seven sins of ...

... 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 ...