That is why the Supreme Court has acknowledged for at least half a century that there are “causes of action in which the law predicates recovery upon expert testimony.” Sa lem v. When that happens, expert opinions must bridge the inferential gap. 523, 526 (1956).Ĭommon sense and fair beliefs, however, sometime fall short of enabling juries to draw non-speculative inferences from complex facts. “Jurors are supposed to reach their conclusions on the basis of common sense, common understanding and fair beliefs, grounded on evidence consisting of direct statements by witnesses or proof of circumstances from which inferences can fairly be drawn.” Schulz v.
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/dictionary/expert-witness.jpg)
Our judicial system entrusts juries to find facts using their own reasoning and experience. This requires understanding the limits on what juries can permissibly infer, given the law of the pertinent jurisdiction and the theory of the case.
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://www.oconnorpersonalinjury.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/expert-witnesses.jpg)
#Expert testimony trial
Because avoiding trial risk and expense is valuable to any defendant, the process through which this particular defendant discerned and then dismantled the foundations for the toxicologist’s opinions, consequently obtaining summary judgment, provides practical lessons to lawyers defending complex claims.Īnalyze Whether the Plaintiff’s Theory of the Case Requires Expert Testimonyĭefendants in complex cases should begin by determining whether plaintiffs can prove their claims without expert testimony. This experience reflects just one of an expanding category of cases in which Daubert decisions are case dispositive. For that reason, the district court granted summary judgment, which the Eleventh Circuit later affirmed. This, in turn, left the plaintiff unable to prove either general or specific causation regarding any of her personal injury claims. In the case at hand, the district court exercised its gatekeeper role and did not “let the jury decide.” It instead found that, notwithstanding his “impressive credentials,” the plaintiff’s expert had “failed to adhere to the methodology expected of toxicologists in toxic tort cases.” That failure rendered his opinions unreliable and therefore inadmissible. Any good trial lawyer knows that if you’ve got one credible expert or scientific study, then you can let the jury decide.” He once quipped: “I don’t need all the science to be on my side. Take the late Texas trial lawyer and purported “King of Torts,” Joe Jamail. The “talismanic significance” placed on expert testimony by lay jurors is not lost on plaintiffs’ lawyers.
#Expert testimony free
And as the Eleventh Circuit later observed, “no other kind of witness is free to opine about a complicated matter without any firsthand knowledge of the facts in the case,” and lay jurors tend to assign expert testimony “talismanic significance.” United States v. Supreme Court warned in Daubert, even specious expert testimony “can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it.” Daubert v. Yet scientifically specious claims like the plaintiff’s still pose a substantial risk to defendants-particularly where they will be bolstered by expert testimony.
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://www.ubuy.com/productimg/?image=aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWFnZXMtbmEuc3NsLWltYWdlcy1hbWF6b24uY29tL2ltYWdlcy9JLzQxbSt2QVZMdS1TLl9TUzQwMF8uanBn.jpg)
Those and other details signaled that that the science underlying the plaintiff’s claims might have been specious. On the other hand, the emissions about which the plaintiff complained are relatively ubiquitous and, in her case, had been emitted from sources located more than a mile from her home.
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://www.dolmanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/How-Expert-Witnesses-Can-Help-Your-Injury-Claim.jpg)
The EPA had also recently determined that the air quality near her lifelong neighborhood had not met the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide (SO 2), which can be hazardous in high concentrations. The plaintiff, for instance, had serious and well-documented health problems.
#Expert testimony driver
The former EPA scientist was impressively credentialed-a point the district court itself would acknowledge-and his anticipated testimony was a major driver behind the plaintiff’s demand for more than $50 million.Īt first glance, some aspects of her claims were concerning. When a suburban Florida woman sued the owner of a neighboring chemical plant and alleged that its emissions permanently damaged her lungs and caused her a variety of other illnesses, she retained, among others, an expert toxicologist to help her prove her case.
#Expert testimony how to
Because Daubert decisions are becoming increasingly case-dispositive in complex cases, understanding how to discern and dismantle the foundations of expert testimony is a crucial skill for defense attorneys.