Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.–7

Supreme Court of the United States

1999

Chapter

12

Title

Opinion Testimony - Lay and Expert

Page

541

Topic

702 applies to scientific, technical and other specialized knowlege

Quick Notes

On July 6, 1993, the right rear tire of a minivan driven by Patrick Carmichael blew out.  In the accident that followed, one of the passengers died, and others were severely injured. A tire expert testified to overdeflection symptoms and prior punctures not being the cause for the blowout, which must have been a deflect.

Daubert's general holding

o         Setting forth the trial judge's general "gatekeeping" obligation

o         Applies not only to testimony based on "scientific" knowledge, but also to testimony based on "technical" and "other specialized" knowledge.

Trial Court

o         We also conclude that a trial court may consider one or more of the more specific factors that Daubert mentioned when doing so will help determine that testimony's reliability.

o         But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is "flexible," and Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. 

o         Rather, the law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

o    If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

o    will assist the trier of fact

o    to understand the evidence or

o    to determine a fact in issue,

o    a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if

o    (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,

o    (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and

o    (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Court - Holding

o         District Court did not abuse its discretionary authority

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether the gatekeeping function applies to only scientific testimony or to all expert testimony?  Applies to ALL expert testimony.

Procedure

Trial

o         At first excluded evidence, but latter allow evidence holding Daubert allowed for flexibility of expert testimony.

Appellant

o         Reversed, explicitly limited its holding to cover only the 'scientific context

Supreme

o         Reversed Court of Appeals.  District Court did not abuse its discretionary authority.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl - Kumho Tire Co

Df - Carmichael

Description

o         On July 6, 1993, the right rear tire of a minivan driven by Patrick Carmichael blew out.

o         In the accident that followed, one of the passengers died, and others were severely injured.

Claimed Tire was defective

o         In October 1993, the Carmichaels brought this diversity suit against the tire's maker and its distributor, whom we refer to collectively as Kumho Tire, claiming that the tire was defective.

Expert Testimony

o         The plaintiffs rested their case in significant part upon deposition testimony provided by an expert in tire failure analysis, Dennis Carlson, Jr., who intended to testify in support of their conclusion.

Must have been a defect

o         Carlson concluded that the tire did not bear at least two of the four overdeflection symptoms, nor was there any less obvious cause of separation; and since neither overdeflection nor the punctures caused the blowout, a defect must have done so.

District Court

o         Granted motion to exclude testimony.

o         Carlsons testimony was not subject to peer review, rate of error and degree of acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

Pl - Arg - Ask for reconsideration

o         Daubert should be applied flexibly.

o         Other factors could argue in favor of admissibility.

Court of Appeals - Reversed

o         De Novo review - anew.

o         Supreme Court in Daubert explicitly limited its holding to cover only the 'scientific context,'" adding that "a Daubert analysis" applies only where an expert relies "on the application of scientific principles," rather than "on skill- or experience-based observation."

o         It concluded that Carlson's testimony, which it viewed as relying on experience, "falls outside the scope of Daubert.

Applies to All expert testimony

o         Rule 702 makes no relevant distinction between "scientific" knowledge and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge. It makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony.

o         In Daubert, the Court specified that it is the Rule's word "knowledge," not the words (like "scientific") that modify that word, that "establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability." 509 U.S. at 589-590.

o         Hence, as a matter of language, the Rule applies its reliability standard to all "scientific," "technical," or "other specialized" matters within its scope.

Daubert said 702 and 703 granted expert witnesses testimonial latitude

o         Daubert pointed out that Federal Rules 702 and 703 grant expert witnesses testimonial latitude unavailable to other witnesses on the "assumption that the expert's opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline."

There is no clear line that divides scientific from technical knowledge

o         Finally, it would prove difficult, if not impossible, for judges to administer evidentiary rules under which a gatekeeping obligation depended upon a distinction between "scientific" knowledge and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge.

Daubert's general principles - testimony must have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline

o         Apply to the expert matters described in Rule 702.

o         The Rule, in respect to all such matters, "establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability."

o         It requires a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.

o         The trial judge must determine whether the testimony has "a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline

District Court concluded Carlsons Methodology was unreliable

(1)   that "none" of the Daubert factors, including that of "general acceptance" in the relevant expert community, indicated that Carlson's testimony was reliable.

(2)   that its own analysis "revealed no countervailing factors operating in favor of admissibility which could outweigh those identified in Daubert.

(3)   that the "parties identified no such factors in their briefs.

o         For these three reasons taken together, it concluded that Carlson's testimony was unreliable

No indication other industry experts use Carlsons two factor test

o         We have found no indication in the record that other experts in the industry use Carlson's two-factor test or that tire experts such as Carlson normally make the very fine distinctions about, say, the symmetry of comparatively greater shoulder tread wear that were necessary, on Carlson's own theory, to support his conclusions. 

o         Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.

Court - Holding

o         District Court did not abuse its discretionary authority

o         Court of Appeals reversed

Rules

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

o    If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

o    will assist the trier of fact

o    to understand the evidence or

o    to determine a fact in issue,

o    a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if

o    (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,

o    (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and

o    (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Class Notes