Also known as: FRE702 · Federal Rule of Evidence 702 · Rule 702 · expert witness rule · Daubert rule
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A federal rule of evidence permitting a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates that the expert's specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fernando Farrell sued Franklin Foundry for product defects and identified Dr. Flora Ford as a potential trial witness only three weeks before trial. Franklin Foundry moved to strike the designation because no prior disclosure had occurred under the scheduling order. The court granted the motion and barred Dr. Ford from testifying because the identity of any witness expected to present evidence under Rule 702 must be disclosed to the opposing party.
Freya Freeman, a store manager, observed skid marks and vehicle damage after a parking-lot collision and offered an opinion on vehicle speed. The opposing party objected that the estimate required technical analysis. The court sustained the objection because the opinion rested on specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702 rather than ordinary perception.
Forrest Falconer offered expert testimony that a chemical caused birth defects based on an untested laboratory simulation never published or peer-reviewed. The defendant moved to exclude the testimony. The court granted the motion after finding the methodology failed reliability factors because it had not been tested, subjected to peer review, or shown to have a known error rate.
Fulton Shipping designated its in-house engineer to testify on vessel stability without describing the subject matter of the expected opinions. The opposing party moved to compel a more detailed disclosure. The court ordered supplementation because the disclosure must state the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Rule 702.
Felicia Fuentes, an engineer, proposed to testify that a tire design caused a rollover using visual inspection methods calibrated only for passenger cars. The manufacturer moved to exclude the testimony. The court excluded the opinion because the methods had not been shown reliable when applied to the heavier commercial vehicle at issue.
Foster Forge retained an expert who reviewed animal studies and concluded that a workplace chemical caused an employee's lung disease. The company moved to exclude the testimony. The court granted the motion because the studies involved different exposure levels and species, creating too great an analytical gap between the data and the proffered opinion.
Robert Joiner began work as an electrician in the Water & Light Department of Thomasville, Georgia, in 1973. This job required him to work with and around the City’s electrical transformers, which used a mineral-oil-based dielectric fluid as a coolant. Joiner often had to stick his hands and arms into the fluid to make repairs. The fluid would sometimes splash onto him, occasionally getting into his eyes and mouth. In 1983 the City discovered that the fluid in some of the transformers was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls. Joiner was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer in 1991. He sued petitioners in Georgia state court the following year. Petitioner Monsanto manufactured PCB’s from 1935 to 1977. Petitioners General Electric and Westinghouse Electric manufactured transformers and dielectric fluid. In his complaint Joiner linked his development of cancer to his exposure to PCB’s and their derivatives, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. Joiner had been a smoker for approximately eight years. His parents had both been smokers, and there was a history of lung cancer in his family. Petitioners removed the case to federal court. Once there, they moved for summary judgment. Joiner responded that there were numerous disputed factual issues that required resolution by a jury. He relied largely on the testimony of expert witnesses. In depositions, his experts had testified that PCB’s alone can promote cancer and that furans and dioxins can also promote cancer. They opined that since Joiner had been exposed to PCB’s, furans, and dioxins, such exposure was likely responsible for Joiner’s cancer. The District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCB’s. But it nevertheless granted summary judgment for petitioners because there was no genuine issue as to whether Joiner had been exposed to furans and dioxins. The testimony of Joiner’s experts had failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCB’s and small-cell lung cancer. The court believed that the testimony of respondent’s experts to the contrary did not rise above subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. It held that because the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, it applied a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimony. The Supreme Court granted petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari.
View caseThe trial judge acts as gatekeeper and must determine that the testimony is both relevant and reliable before it reaches the jury. Reliability is assessed by examining whether the expert's methodology has been tested, subjected to peer review, possesses a known error rate, is governed by standards, and is generally accepted in the relevant field.
Yes. Rule 702 expressly allows qualification by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and formal academic credentials are not required when hands-on experience supplies the necessary specialized knowledge.
The party must disclose the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence and a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.
…district court properly applied this standard, and affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Frye was superseded by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2794, and remanded for us to consider the admissibility of plaintiffs' expert testimony under this new standard. B. Procedural Issues First, however,…