Showing results 1-6 of 6.


  In re Paoli RR Yard PCB Litigation - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/31/1994
Amended: 10/17/1994
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert suggests several factors that a district court should take into account in evaluating whether a particular scientific methodology is reliable (i.e. scientifically valid), including the testability of the expert's hypothesis ("whether it can be (and has been) tested"), Daubert, ___ U.S. at ____, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, whether the methodology has been subjected to peer review and publication, the frequency by which the methodology leads to erroneous results, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and whether the methodology has been generally accepted in the scientific community.[7] ... Primarily, however, we must consider the voluminous record concerning expert opinion and, applying Fed.R.Evid. 702 and the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), decide whether the district court erred in again excluding the opinions of plaintiffs' experts in connection with its summary judgment determination.

Cited 908 times
Medical terminology Medical specialties Proteomics Respiratory diseases Industrial occupations 

  Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 1/8/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Assuming arguendo that this case does not involve "scientific law" (and thus, Daubert's holding does not apply), we must then consider "Daubert's countervailing precept: that the trial judge is assigned `the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.'" ... Bogosian appeals, contending that the district court committed reversible error in (1) granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Mercedes-Benz on the negligence claim, (2) excluding one of her expert witnesses, (3) excluding evidence of a product modification occurring after the manufacture of the automobile in question, but before the injurious event, and (4) denying her motion for new trial.

Cited 47 times
Vehicle parts Automotive accessories Industrial occupations Mechanisms (engineering) 

  Lauria v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 5/22/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

For example, in Hammond v. Int'l Harvester Co., we held that a witness who sold agricultural equipment and taught automobile repair and maintenance at a high school, but who lacked any formal training or education, could testify as an expert in a products liability action involving tractors, based on his "knowledge and experience" alone. ... Slavin's expert report contained his opinion that, from an examination of photos and the site, the piece of wood in question was a "base tie" over which a walkway platform once existed; that it should have been discovered by Amtrak during a regular inspection and removed; and that it "contributed to and caused" Lauria's injuries.[4]

Cited 40 times
Railway track layouts Permanent way Railway lines Industrial occupations 

  Hebert v. Lisle Corp. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 11/5/1996

Lisle's expert witness testified that Mr. Hebert was required to provide the patent examiner with the information in the Lisle letters as quoted supra, whether or not it was prior art and whether or not Mr. Hebert had the intent to withhold the letters in order to deceive or mislead the examiner. ... Despite the absence of any evidence that Mr. Hebert possessed information about prior art, Lisle's patent expert testified that Mr. Hebert had the obligation to submit the Lisle "prior art information" to the examiner, and that his failure to do so was inequitable conduct under the law.

Cited 13 times
Industrial occupations 

  Correa v. Cruisers, A Div. of KCS Intern., Inc. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 7/23/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 imposes an important gatekeeper function on judges by requiring them to ensure that three requirements are met before admitting expert testimony: (1) the expert is qualified to testify by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) the testimony concerns scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge; and (3) the testimony is such that it will assist the trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact in issue. ... In reviewing the reliability of proffered expert testimony, the trial court conducts a "flexible inquiry," which includes consideration of "the verifiability of the expert's theory or technique, the error rate inherent therein, whether the theory or technique has been published and/or subjected to peer review, and its level of acceptance within the scientific community."

Cited 5 times
Nautical terms Industrial occupations Engine components 

  Proctor v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/13/2007
District Court Decision: Admitted

Fluor contends that it is entitled to (1) judgment as a matter of law because Proctor failed to establish that Fluor breached a duty of care that proximately caused Proctor's injuries arising from a manufacturing plant accident or, alternatively, (2) a new trial based on the district court's erroneous decisions to exclude evidence on the borrowed servant doctrine and admit expert testimony on the cause of Proctor's stroke. ... Most importantly, Dr. McKinley provided an expert opinion on the accident's cause after reviewing depositions, the February 1 shift report, photographs taken of the machine at the Solutia site, and articles on pumps and liquid vaporization.

Cited 3 times
Problem solving Fluid dynamics Stroke Physical chemistry Medical specialties