This paper examines the Daubert standard, the federal framework for evaluating expert testimony admissibility. It traces the landmark Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case, explains Florida's 2013 adoption of the standard, and analyzes two significant applications: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael and Covel v. Rodriguez. The paper demonstrates how courts apply Daubert factors to determine whether expert evidence meets reliability and relevance thresholds, emphasizing the trial judge's gatekeeping responsibility and the distinction between scientific, technical, and practical knowledge in legal proceedings.
The case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals involved petitioners—two small children and their parents—who brought suit alleging that the children's serious birth defects were caused by the mothers' prenatal ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription drug marketed by the respondent. The District Court granted the respondent summary judgment based on a well-credentialed expert's affidavit. After reviewing extensive published scientific literature, this expert concluded that maternal use of Bendectin had not been shown to pose a risk for human birth defects.
Although the petitioners responded with testimony from eight well-credentialed specialists who argued that Bendectin could cause birth defects based on animal studies, chemical structure analysis, and unpublished reanalysis of previously published human statistical studies, the court determined that this evidence did not meet the appropriate "general acceptance" standard for admission of expert testimony. This case established the foundation for a new framework governing how courts evaluate expert evidence.
The Florida legislature passed House Bill 7015 in April 2013, which eliminated Florida's reliance on the Frye standard for accepting expert testimony. The new law became effective on July 1, 2013, requiring all Florida state courts to adhere to the current federal standard, known as the Daubert standard.
Although Florida recognized that the Daubert standard itself was not novel—the federal court system had applied it for more than twenty years—the shift held significant implications for Florida practitioners, particularly defense counsel. The new standard provides defense attorneys with substantially more tools to challenge expert testimony. This adoption reflects a broader trend toward uniform application of evidence standards across state and federal systems.
On July 6, 1993, Patrick Carmichael was driving his minivan when the right rear tire blew out. One passenger died, and others suffered severe injuries. Three months later, the Carmichaels sued the tire manufacturer, alleging that a defect in the tire caused the accident. The case rested substantially on testimony from a tire failure expert.
The expert relied on features of tire technology that the manufacturer did not dispute, as well as background evidence about the specific tire on the Carmichaels' van. However, Kumho Tire strongly challenged both the expert's assumption that a defect caused the accident and his specific methodology. The manufacturer requested that the federal trial court reject the expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The applicable law centered on the trial court's gatekeeping responsibility. The court must determine whether expert testimony is admissible without drawing a strict line between "scientific" knowledge and "practical" or "other specialized" knowledge. No clear boundary separates these categories. For instance, engineering disciplines rest on "scientific knowledge," yet pure scientific theory itself may depend on reflection and properly engineered equipment (Neubauer, 2013). Theoretical efforts to distinguish between the two are unlikely to yield clear legal lines applicable in specific cases.
There is no persuasive reason to insist on such distinctions. Experts of all kinds connect observations to conclusions using what Judge Learned Hand termed "common truths resulting from professional experience" (Hand, 1901). Whether expert testimony emphasizes specific observations, the specialized interpretation of those observations, a specialized theory itself, or the application of such theory in a particular case, the specialist's testimony will sometimes rest on "an experience confessedly alien to [the jury's] own" (Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 1998). The trial judge's responsibility to ensure that testimony is reliable and relevant can help the jury assess that unfamiliar experience, whether the testimony reflects scientific, practical, or other specialized knowledge.
Carlson's deposition relied heavily on features of tire technology that were not in dispute. A steel-belted radial tire consists of a "carcass" containing multiple layers of flexible cables called "plies," along which are laid steel strips called "belts." Steel wire loops, known as "beads," hold the cords together at the bottom edges of the plies. An outer layer, the "tread," encases the carcass, and heat and chemicals bind the entire tire together in rubber.
Given this complexity, the Court saw no compelling reason to distinguish between "scientific" and "technical" knowledge, because both types would naturally exceed the average juror's grasp. Therefore, the Court held that the gatekeeping purpose defined in Daubert applied to all expert testimony offered under Rule 702. This ruling extended Daubert's framework beyond purely scientific domains to encompass technical and practical expertise.
The Court's opinion makes clear that trial court discretion in selecting the method to test expert consistency does not eliminate the gatekeeping function. However, this discretion is not license to perform the function ineffectively. Rather, it is the discretion to choose among means capable of excluding biased knowledge and worthless science. As the Court emphasized, the Daubert factors are not rigid mandates. In a specific case, failure to apply one or another factor may be unreasonable and therefore an abuse of discretion.
This case involved a wrongful death action in which plaintiffs argued that faulty brakes on a bus owned by Elias A. and Pedro Rodriguez caused the death of H. K. Covel. Covel was driving northbound on the inside lane of Interstate 35 when his pickup truck lost control and crossed into the median, causing it to enter opposite traffic. At that moment, the defendants' bus traveling in the other lane struck Covel's truck head-on. H. K. Covel was killed instantly. Plaintiffs alleged that another driver, Sparlin, struck Covel's truck and caused him to lose control. Defendants countered that their bus was not the cause of the accident and that their driver faced an unexpected and unavoidable collision.
Under Oklahoma evidence law, an expert may testify by inference or opinion and provide explanations without preceding disclosure of underlying facts or data, unless the court or cross-examination requires such disclosure (12 O.S. 2011 § 2705.5). The opposing party bears the burden of proving that the expert exceeds his knowledge or, if within his general expertise, that he failed to provide a proper basis for his opinions. Permitting a defendant to raise Daubert objections to expert testimony after that testimony has been admitted without objection robs the expert of the opportunity to provide additional supporting evidence (Marbled Murrelet, 83 F.3d at 1067).
Daubert thus creates a gatekeeping function for the trial court regarding admission of expert evidence when confronted. It does not permit a party to allow expert testimony and then attempt to discredit it on Daubert grounds after all proof has been presented. Failure to object results in waiver of the error on appeal, absent fundamental error.
Additionally, Oklahoma law required commercial drivers to have proper licenses, prohibited crossing the median into opposite traffic lanes on divided highways, and prohibited driving faster than 70 miles per hour on four-lane divided highways (Instruction 9).
The expert witnesses' opinions and conclusions conflicted. Both experts relied on Total Station electronic survey measurements taken at the accident scene and photographs. Neither expert examined the bus's brakes. When evidence is conflicting, the jury decides the case. Considering all evidence favorable to the nonmoving party and disregarding evidence favorable to the movant, there was no clear error in the trial judge's denial of the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The plaintiffs did not claim that the defendants' bus caused the accident; rather, they argued that defective brakes increased the severity of the injuries and Covel's death. Attorneys have wide latitude in opening and closing statements, subject to the trial court's limitations. Control over the scope of arguments rests within the trial court's discretion (Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 OK 84, 148 P.3d 880, 885). A jury instruction to disregard inappropriate argument cures any bias that might result, as it cannot be presumed that the jury will fail to follow the court's cautionary instruction.
The trial judge committed no error, and the damages awarded were not excessive. I agree that the damages did not result from prejudice or passion. Plaintiffs requested $1.7 million per plaintiff, which the jury found just. Although the jury awarded less, the damages were reasonable and supported by evidence. The defendants argued that the trial court repeatedly reserved their ability to present their theory of the case while permitting Dr. Strauss wide latitude in his opinions. This argument lacks merit because the defendants did not object to Dr. Strauss's testimony or his opinions regarding what witnesses and parties might have perceived or what might have occurred in the northbound lanes.
Furthermore, defendants proposed that Covel may have suffered a medical event responsible for the accident, and they cross-examined Mrs. Covel concerning her husband's health history. There was no error in the trial court's refusal to grant the defendants' motion for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or remittitur. The defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or remittitur was properly denied because competent evidence supported the jury's decision, and that decision was not the product of passion or bias.
The Daubert standard has become the dominant framework for evaluating expert testimony admissibility in federal courts and, increasingly, in state courts. The cases examined in this paper demonstrate how courts apply Daubert's gatekeeping function across diverse contexts—from product liability disputes involving technical tire failure to wrongful death cases involving accident reconstruction.
Both Kumho Tire and Covel v. Rodriguez illustrate that trial courts possess significant discretion in determining whether expert testimony meets reliability and relevance standards. This discretion, however, is not unlimited. Courts must actively perform their gatekeeping role, applying Daubert factors to exclude unreliable or biased evidence while allowing legitimate expert testimony that assists the trier of fact. The failure to apply relevant Daubert factors without good reason may constitute an abuse of discretion subject to appellate review. As the standard continues to evolve in state jurisdictions, practitioners must remain cognizant of how courts balance trial court flexibility with the need to maintain evidentiary integrity and protect the jury's role as fact-finder in the American legal system.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.