Product Liability -- 2005



White-Rodgers v. Bitler   (U.S. Supreme Court)

Testimony of expert witnesses

The NAM and the American Tort Reform Association filed an amicus brief 6/9/05 supporting this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in this case involving the testimony of expert witnesses. A judge’s role in deciding whether to allow a so-called expert to testify is often critical to the outcome of a case. Expert witnesses are allowed by testify by the judge because they have specialized knowledge on subjects that the jury doesn’t really know enough about. They are given much more leeway in testifying about their opinions on what happened, and even on the ultimate issue in the case. It is crucial that whatever basis they have for giving their opinions be grounded in sound science that can either be verified by testing or that has been vetted through peer review. Juries are not expected to sort out a legitimate expert witness from a junk scientist.

Our brief argues that the Supreme Court’s Daubert ruling in 1993 requires that judges act as gatekeepers and keep out testimony that is not properly supported by science. A court must make sure that an expert’s conclusions flow from his or her methodology. An expert on one product design should not be allowed to opine on products designed another way. If an expert’s opinion can be easily tested, it should be. Reliable expert testimony should not require a leap of faith.

The Court declined to review the appeal on 10/3/05.