To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Torts Keyed to Prosser

Held. The Plaintiffs’ expert testimony is not admissible.

* When it comes to expert testimony and scientific theory, it is hard for the courts to determine what is a fact and what is a scientific theory admissible in court.
* Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702) is now the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony. Under Rule 702, there are several factors to consider when determining whether expert testimony is admissible:
i. Whether the theory is generally accepted in the scientific community;
ii. Whether the theory/method has been subjected to peer review and publication;
iii. Whether the theory/method has been tested or can be tested;
iv. Whether the potential or known rate of error is acceptable.
* It is the court’s responsibility to resolve disputes among the respected and credentialed scientists about matters within the scientists’ expertise and to reject testimony if it is not obtained by the scientific method.
* If expert testimony is shown to be the result of research conducted for the purpose of litigation, the expert must show precisely how they reached their conclusions and point to an objective source to show they followed the scientific method as it is practiced by at least a recognized minority in their field. Because the Plaintiffs’ experts cannot do this, the testimony is not admissible.
* The Plaintiffs’ experts did not conduct their research independent of the litigation and the theories have not been published in scientific journals or reviewed by peers, thought there has been ample time to do so because the theories and litigation has been around for a decade.
* Furthermore, under Rule 702, the Plaintiffs must show that the evidence they offer would assist the trier of fact in determining a factual issue. The Plaintiffs cannot show causation directly and attempt to show it through circumstantial evidence provided by their experts. The testimony cannot establish that the defects were not caused by an independent cause, since limb reduction defects occur in the babies of mothers who did not take the drug. The Plaintiffs’ experts cannot say that the drug more than doubled their risk of the defect, only that there was a statistical relationship between he drug and the birth defect.

Additional Resources from Bloomberg Law

Books and Treatises

Torts Subjects

Business Torts Litigation
Covers business torts such as breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with contractual relationships
Products Liability
Provides a basic overview of products liability law in the United States
Sack on Defamation
A comprehensive treatise on defamation, including the cause of action, damages, and constitutional issues
Recent Trends in Products Liability
Advanced book on recent trends in products liability law, and how to litigate these cases
Medical Malpractice
Advanced book on medical malpractice, recommended for first part covering the bases for liability and damages
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Chapter on Res Ipsa Loquitur from an advanced treatise on negligence litigation, covering the rule and its application
Legal Malpractice
Chapter on common law legal malpractice, including liability, standard of care, proximate cause, and injury & damages
Workplace Torts
Covers various common law torts under which an employee may sue an employer or co-worker

State Laws

California Florida
Massachusetts North Carolina

Law Reports

Product Safety & Liability Reporter Privacy Law Watch

Search Court Opinions

Torts Product Liability Damages/Remedies
Medical Malpractice Legal Malpractice All Torts Topics

Torts News Topics

Torts Product Liability Personal Injury
Privacy Medical Malpractice All Torts Topics

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following