The NAM urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit's judgment in a product liability case that would allow an expert to testify without a sound scientific foundation. The Supreme Court agreed on March 23, 1999, holding that federal district courts have the discretionary authority, reviewable for its abuse, to determine reliability of such testimony in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the particular case.
In Daubert, the Supreme Court established several general criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the case below, the Eleventh Circuit held that the testimony of an expert on tire failure was not "scientific" and thus not subject to the Daubert inquiry for determining admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Daubert criteria do not apply to the admissibility of all expert testimony. Instead, they are only applied to evaluate the "reliability of witnesses who claim scientific expertise." The Eleventh Circuit defined a scientific expert as one "who relied on the application of scientific principles, rather than on skill – or experience-based observation, for the basis of his opinion." Id. The expert on tire failure’s testimony was based on his utilization of personal experience and skill with failed tires, and not on the application of scientific principles or theories. Therefore, the court concluded that the expert’s testimony fell outside the scope of the Daubert analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower court must determine the reliability (and therefore the admissibility) not only of expert testimony based on "scientific" knowledge, but also of expert testimony based on "technical" and "other specialized" knowledge, such as the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists. In doing so, a district court may consider one or more of the specific factors mentioned in Daubert to the extent that they are helpful in determining the reliability of the expert's testimony.
This is a victory for manufacturers involved in product liability and other cases where experts testify. The Supreme Court has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to introduce testimony of experts whose theories have not been subject to scientific scrutiny.
Lower court opinion: 131 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir.)