Ramey & Hailey, Attorneys at Law Rated by Super lawyers The Best Lawyers in America TAOS Injury Lawyers
Free Initial Consultation Handset 317.582.0000
August 31 - Newsblog #1
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Homeowner and Wife Sue over Police Shooting
September 7 - Newsblog #2
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Homeowner’s Possession of Handgun Legal Under 2nd Amendment
September 14 - Newsblog #3
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: if a Government or Government Agency is at Fault, You Can Sue
September 21 - Newsblog #4
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Lawsuit Against Police Department Invokes the Civil Rights Act
September 28 - Newsblog #5
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: a Clear Line from the Action – or Inaction – to the Injury
October 12 - Newsblog #6
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Police Insensitivity Turns Traffic Stop into a Travesty
October 19 - Newsblog #7
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Police Who Abuse Power Must Be Held Accountable, Law Professor States
October 26 - Newsblog #8
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Holding Overly Aggressive Police Accountable
November 2 - Newsblog #9
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Brown Vs. Impd Case About Much More Than Punishment or Money
November 9 - Newsblog #10
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Improper Medical Diagnosis and Care Resulted in Loss of an Eye
November 16 - Newsblog #11
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Medical Malpractice Claims Have a Front End and a Back End
November 30 - Newsblog #12
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Truths About Medical Malpractice
December 7 - Newsblog #13
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Yes, You Can Sue City Hall
December 14 - Newsblog #14
Your Injury Attorneys in the News: Slip and Fall Changes Two Lives Forever
December 28 - Newsblog #15
In the News: Ramey & Hailey Year in Review
January 4 - Newsblog #16
In the News: Teen’s Sexual Abuse Case Calls Attention to the Problem
January 11 - Newsblog #17
In the News: Parents of Survivor Sue Parents of Shooter
January 18 - Newsblog #18
In the News: Erin Brockovich Teams Up with Indiana Moms

Products Liability Newsletter

Proving Liability & Injuries with Experts

Authorities suggest that “lay” witnesses may testify to conclusions drawn from their own observations, while an “expert” expresses an opinion based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The testimony of a civil engineer in a 1782 English case may be the first recorded use of expert testimony.

In many lawsuits, the testimony of an “expert” witness is essential for a party to establish their case. Such testimony may be required on numerous issues in a lawsuit, including, for example:

  • How and why the product in a products’ liability case was defective.
  • Whether the actions of the defendant actually caused the injury to the plaintiff, e.g., did exposure to the asbestos really cause the plaintiff’s lung cancer.
  • The standard of care to which a defendant is held in a negligence case, and whether the defendant’s conduct failed to meet this standard.
  • Calculation of damages, e.g., if an injury creates a permanent disability, the amount of award that will compensate for future damages and possible medical procedures and care.

Designating Experts

Experts must usually be qualified by virtue of their education, training, experience, and/or special knowledge. Although procedures vary among states and the federal courts, in most courts, a party planning to call an expert to testify at trial must generally give appropriate notice to all other parties of each expert’s identity and qualifications, and the issues on which the expert will render an opinion. This usually must be done through a formal procedure outlined in applicable state or federal laws and rules of procedure. As a rule, the other parties may then take the expert’s deposition (i.e. out-of-court sworn testimony) and/or hire their own experts to challenge the expert’s conclusions and opinions. Failure, or even delay in designating an expert or providing the required information regarding one’s expert may result in that expert’s testimony not being allowed at trial.

Allowance of Expert Testimony by the Court – The Frye Case

In a 1923 criminal case, Frye v. U.S., the District of Columbia court of appeals considered whether to allow expert testimony regarding the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test. The lower court would not allow the testimony. The court of appeals stated the rule that testimony of experts may be admissible regarding issues where inexperienced persons will not likely be able to form a correct judgment, because it is so related to science, etc., that previous experience or study is necessary. In order to be admissible, however, such testimony must be deduced from a “well-recognized scientific principles or discovery,” that have gained “general acceptance.” The court concluded that polygraph tests had not yet attained that status.

The court admitted that it may be hard to tell exactly when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line from experimental to well-established. Evaluating the reliability of a test or expert testimony is thus, in a sense, placed upon the scientific community. The Frye test has been used by many courts ever since; if a proposed expert’s testimony is based on “generally accepted” principles, it may be admitted.

The Daubert Case and Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which changed the way many courts decide on the admissibility of expert testimony. The heart of the case was whether medication administered to a pregnant mother caused birth defects in her children. The mother offered expert testimony to establish the connection, but the lower court would not allow such testimony, because it felt the testimony did not meet the Frye general acceptance criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court, but applied different reasoning.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Frye test and stated a new test applicable to the type of scientific evidence at issue in Daubert. The Court stated that inquiry into whether such expert testimony is admissible and reliable must be “flexible,” but focused on the “principles and methodology employed by the expert, not just the conclusions.” Listed factors to be considered included:

  • Whether the theory or technique can and has been tested, and whether there were control standards maintained during the testing, to promote accuracy.
  • Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
  • The statistical potential for errors in the methodology.
  • Whether there is widespread acceptance of it in the relevant scientific community.

These factors were later incorporated into Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In a subsequent case in the 1990’s, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts should also scrutinize the expert’s reasoning process, as well as methodology. Finally, in 1999 the Court extended the Daubert reliability test to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony.


It is impossible to generalize about the admissibility of expert testimony in U.S. courts. Federal courts are bound by Daubert and its two related decisions. Since federal rules were involved in Daubert, the decision is not binding on state courts. Some states have adopted the Daubert test, others have adopted it only in part, some states continue to use the Frye test, and another set of states have fashioned their own tests for admissibility.

Especially in states that have accepted Daubert, parties may file a pretrial motion with the court to exclude expert testimony because it does not meet the applicable test for admissibility. Depending on the applicable test, the court may scrutinize the expert’s methodology and reasoning, whether it is widely accepted in the scientific community, and/or other factors. The court will then determine whether the expert will be allowed to testify at trial.

  • What Constitutes a "Class" for Litigation Purposes
    A class action suit is a claim brought by one or more individuals on behalf of themselves and others with similar claims. There are several types of cases appropriate for a class action lawsuit including: A mass accident... Read more.
  • Defects in SUV's and Product Liability
    “Sport Utility Vehicles” (SUV’s) have become increasingly popular. It has been estimated that SUV’s comprise 25% or more of new car sales, as opposed to only 2% in 1985. Unfortunately, serious questions have been... Read more.
  • Toys That Pose a Hazard to Young Children
    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates the distribution of 15,000 types of consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury or death to the public. As young children are particularly susceptible to... Read more.
  • Amalgams - Does the Mercury in Dental Fillings Cause Harm?
    Amalgams are a type of dental tooth filling which, unlike gold or porcelain fillings, contain mercury. In the past several years, the American Dental Association (ADA) and several state dental chapters have come under the attack of... Read more.
Products Liability News Links
Designed and Powered by NextClient

© 2014 - 2019 Ramey & Hailey, Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved.
Custom WebExpress™ attorney website design by NextClient.com.