Showing results 1-9 of 9.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"There are a number of considerations which must inform such a conclusion."
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed
With regard to the first tier of analysis, Daubert offers a non-exclusive list of factors to aid judges in determining whether particular expert opinion is grounded in reliable scientific methodology. ... Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles of Daubert, a district court judge is to act as a "gatekeeper" for expert testimony, only admitting such testimony after receiving satisfactory evidence of its reliability.Forklift truck manufacturers Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Engineering vehicles
As configured in the Third Circuit, Daubert compels a three-part analysis: (1) qualifications — whether the expert is qualified to speak with authority on the subject at issue; (2) reliability — whether the expert's methodology is sound and whether his or her opinion is supported by "good 531*531 grounds;" and (3) fit — whether there is a relevant "connection between the scientific research or test result to be presented and particular disputed factual issues in the case." ... Kimberly M. Hrabosky, Note, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael: Stretching Daubert Beyond Recognition, 8 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 203 (1999) (arguing that "mechanical application of Daubert to nonscientific expert testimony defies logic and could lead to substantial injustice in the criminal context");
Alternative design cases often require potential experts to take into account certain factors, including "the degree to which the alternative design is compatible with existing systems...; the relative efficiency of the two designs; the short and long term maintenance costs associated with the alternative design; the ability of the purchaser to service and to maintain the alternative designs; the relative cost of installing the two designs; and the effect, if any, that the alternative design would have on the price of the machine." ... If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Cummins stands for the proposition that after Daubert, "Rule 702 is designed to ensure that, when expert witnesses testify in court, they adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work." ... Borawick, then, stands squarely for the proposition that Daubert has relaxed the standards controlling the admission of expert testimony admissibility rather than tightened them.
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ("Rule 702) and the Supreme Court's seminal case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... The purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to scrutinize the proposed expert witness testimony to determine if it has "`the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field' so as to be deemed reliable enough to present to a jury."
Having carefully examined the plaintiff's expert report in light of Rule 702 and Daubert, the Court concludes that the expert, Ben T. Railsback, does not have "specialized knowledge [that] will assist the trier of fact" in this case involving a forklift and, further, that the testimony that would be offered by Railsback is not the "product of reliable principles and methods [. . .] applied [. . .] reliably to the facts of the case." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 578 (1993), the Supreme Court addressed the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony and assigned a gatekeeping function in this regard to the trial court.
However, the "trial judge is not the court's armed guard," and the "rejection of expert testimony under Daubert is the exception rather than the rule." ... If the expert testimony is shown to be reliable by a "preponderance of the evidence," then the testimony should be admitted and "tested by the adversary process — competing expert testimony and active cross-examination — rather than excluded from jurors' scrutiny for fear that they will not grasp its complexities or satisfactorily weigh its inadequacies."
Alternative design cases often require potential experts to take into account certain factors, including "the degree to which the alternative design is compatible with existing systems . . . ; the relative efficiency of the two designs; the short and long term maintenance costs associated with the alternative design; the ability of the purchaser to service and to maintain the alternative designs; the relative cost of installing the two designs; and the effect, if any, that the alternative design would have on the price of the machine." ... She reviewed roughly twenty-nine categories of documents that were sent to her, including accident statements, the reports of Sevart and Liu, diagrams of the accident site, other experts' inspection and testing notes, various regulations, photos and testing data from Dr. Liu's testing, and Phillips's medical records and radiographs.
As the Advisory Committee Note observes, Daubert's factors for assessing reliability are "neither exclusive nor dispositive" and do not apply to every type of expert opinion. ... Again, plaintiffs' argument in support of admissibility rests solely on Dr. Boelhouwer's "expertise" regarding warnings and on a non-binding case with inapposite facts. Whereas the human factors expert in Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 214 F.3d 1235, 1243 (10th Cir. 2000) offered the rather commonsensical opinion that the milling machine at issue could have been made safer by the simple addition of mirrors that would enable the operator to view the groundsmen on either side, here the vague "feedback system" that Dr. Boelhouwer proposes is much more complex and product-specific.