Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, Sup Ct March 23, 1999.
When a tire on a vehicle failed resulting in the death of one passenger and injuries to others, a suit against the tire's maker and distributor (Kumho Tire) resulted claiming the tire that failed was defective. A significant portion of the plaintiffs' case was founded on the opinion of a tire failure analyst who intended to testify that the tire failed due to defective design or a defect in the tire's manufacture. His opinion was based on visual and tactile inspection of the tire and indications that there was a lack of abuse that could have caused the failure.
Kumho Tire moved to exclude his testimony on the ground that it failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which states, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact. . . , a witness qualified as an expert. . . may testify thereto in the form of an opinion." The District Court granted the motion and entered a summary judgement for the defendants acknowledging that it should act as a "gatekeeper" under Daubert v Merrell Dow using the four factors, testing, peer review, error rates, and "acceptability" in the relevant scientific community to help it determine the reliability of a particular scientific theory or technique. The court found these factors argued against the reliability of the expert's methodology.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed holding as a matter of law the lower court had erred in applying Daubert standards that should be limited to scientific evidence.
The Supreme Court in reversing held that Daubert factors may be applied to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists. The Daubert "gatekeeping" obligation applies not only to scientific testimony but also to all expert testimony. Daubert only referred to scientific knowledge because that was the nature of the expertise offered.
Those reading this on MAC's Internet site may click here to read the entire decision.
It is obvious that the power of the trial courts have been broadened in performing their "gatekeeping" determination as to what expert testimony will be admissible. The power is flexible and the court, in determining what testimony will be admissible may, also consider factors outside those enumerated in Daubert.