Showing results 1-10 of 15.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"This objective can be accomplished in a number of different ways, including through the review of experimental, statistical, or other scientific data generated by others in the field."

  Chapman v. Maytag Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 7/29/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Maytag filed a reply and a motion in limine to bar Petry's testimony as an expert, arguing that Mrs. Chapman failed to satisfy the requirements for expert testimony pursuant to Rule 702 and the Daubert standard. ... The Daubert standard and Rule 702 are 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.

Cited 125 times
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning Electricity 

  Clark v. Takata Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 9/24/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On November 7, 1997, the defendants filed a motion to strike the testimony of Dr. Lafferty from consideration, arguing that Lafferty failed to perform "the necessary research and testing to submit legitimate expert opinions" and that his testimony was therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... On March 5, 1998, the district judge struck expert witness Lafferty's report and affidavit from consideration because they failed to meet the standard of evidentiary reliability of expert testimony explained in Daubert, which requires that scientific evidence be both relevant and reliable.

Cited 111 times
Automotive safety technologies Textile closures Safety equipment English inventions 

  Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 8/30/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

After a jury trial, where Fuesting was 531*531 awarded $650,000, Zimmer appeals, arguing that the district court erroneously applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) in admitting unreliable expert testimony. ... To aid courts in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony, the Daubert Court set forth the following, non-exhaustive list of "guideposts" for consideration: (1) whether the scientific theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the theory's known or potential rate of error when applied; and (4) whether the theory has been "generally accepted" in the scientific community.

Cited 62 times
Composite materials Chemical properties Long bones Orthopedic surgical procedures Architectural elements 

  Phillips v. Raymond Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 3/24/2005

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.

Cited 13 times

  Kinser v. Gehl Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/27/1999
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The Court held that while the factors identified in Daubert are flexible and non-exclusive, the testimony of all experts whose data, principles, methods, or application are called into question must be assessed for relevance and reliability as a precondition to admissibility. ... Notwithstanding Gehl's pre-trial motion in limine, the court refused to conduct a Daubert hearing in order to evaluate the reliability of plaintiff's experts and the relevance of their proposed testimony.[4]

Cited 12 times
Agricultural machinery Agriculture-related lists 

  Rogers v. Ford Motor Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 1/21/1997

AlliedSignal and Ford move for summary judgment on the grounds that (a) the plaintiffs' sole design defect expert is not qualified to testify under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and his proposed testimony is neither relevant nor based on scientifically reliable methodologies pursuant to the mandates of Daubert; and (b) even assuming, arguendo, that the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert were admissible, the plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proving that a feasible, more practicable design would have afforded better protection. ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court of the United States articulated several nonexclusive guideposts to assist the district courts in determining whether expert testimony can fairly be characterized as a scientific opinion: whether the proffered conclusion lends itself to verification by the scientific method through testing; whether the conclusion has been subjected to peer review; whether the conclusion has been evaluated in light of the potential rate of error of the scientific technique; and whether the conclusion is consistent with the generally accepted method for gathering the relevant scientific evidence.

Cited 9 times

  Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/24/2010

Sandoz argues that Abbott is not prejudiced because its awareness of these defenses and prior art references afforded Abbott the opportunity to investigate them. Sandoz likens this case to DataQuill Ltd. v. Handspring, Inc., in which the court held that "the extreme sanction of exclusion is not warranted under Rule 37(c)" where the defendant's failure to include prior-art references in its interrogatory response was harmless because the plaintiff still had "a full opportunity to inquire into [defendant's expert's] opinion at his deposition." ... Abbott bases its motion to exclude any undisclosed expert testimony by Dr. Pagano on Rule 26(a), which requires complete disclosure of expert opinions, and Rule 37(c)(1), which precludes a party from presenting expert testimony it did not disclose under Rule 26, unless the party can show that its Rule 26 violation was either justified or harmless.

Cited 3 times

  Garcia v. BRK Brands, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 5/27/2003

The plaintiffs concede that the Daubert ruling prevents any of their experts from directly reaching this conclusion, but contend that a reasonable jury would still be able to resolve this issue in their favor based on the combined weight of documentary evidence and admissible expert testimony concerning the space heater and the smoke detector. ... In this case, however, there is no indication that any of these three experts (Russell, Cranmer, and McCain) conducted any review of scientific literature in either reaching their challenged conclusions or in preparing to defend them at their depositions or at the Daubert hearing.

Cited 2 times


Decided: 6/12/2015

Daubert teaches that the reliability of an expert's methodology may be assessed by considering factors such as "(1) whether the scientific theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether a particular technique has a known potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community." ... Zimmer incorporates its motion to exclude any expert testimony regarding tibial loosening [1309] as unreliable under Rule 702 and Daubert and asserts that if the court grants that motion, it is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's design defect claims that are tethered to tibial loosening theories.

Cited 0 times


Decided: 5/2/2012

However, "[t]he notion that Daubert requires particular credentials for an expert witness is radically unsound . . . ... "The proponent of the expert bears the burden of demonstrating that the expert's testimony would satisfy the Daubert standard," by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cited 0 times