Page 48 - Civil Litigation

Appendix E — Daubert and Kumho Case Summaries

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases set the primary legal precedent for the admissibility of expert testimony
in federal cases: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire
Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999). These cases expanded the role of the trial judge as a gate-
keeper for expert testimony. fn 1

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZS.html)

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court addressed scientific evidence offered by an
expert witness and its admissibility. In summary, the court held that trial judges are to ensure expert wit-
ness testimony based on a reliable foundation and relevant to the task at hand. In general, the Daubert
ruling is based on the following questions:

1. Is the expertise and testimony of the expert witness relevant to matters at issue in the trial?

2. Is the testimony of the expert witness reliable because the theory or technique used by the expert

a. can be and has been tested?

b. has been subjected to peer review and publication?

c. identified the known or potential error rate?

d. is standardized and generally accepted within relevant peer community?

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/97-1709)

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael expanded the gatekeeping function of the trial judge under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to all expert testimony based on scientific, technical, or other spe-
cialized knowledge, including experience based technical testimony.

fn 1 These cases are referenced as guidance only and do not necessarily comprise all factors and considerations related to
the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

46 © 2020 Association of International Certified Professional Accountants