The Court denied a Daubert motion to exclude a fire investigator’s testimony on the origin and cause of a destructive fire. It found the investigator qualified through extensive experience investigating fires. Minor flaws in his analysis provided fodder for cross-examination but did not warrant exclusion. Competing expert conclusions created a battle of the experts for the jury to resolve at trial, not grounds to exclude testimony under Daubert, the court held.
Read More →Tag: Reliable
Court limits expert testimony on crash reconstruction and its contributing factors
In this car accident case, the court ruled that accident reconstructionist Leonard Vaughan could testify about the visibility of headlights leading up to the crash based on his experience and review of evidence. However, his opinions that the defendant had a duty to fully stop at the intersection and that his employer was vicariously liable for a traffic violation were inadmissible legal conclusions. The court emphasized experts cannot instruct on how the law applies or offer opinions on legal issues, which invade the court and jury’s authority.
Read More →Court confirms the admissibility of the testimony of occupational medicine expert in employment discrimination case
In an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 “ADA” discrimination case, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony offered by the Plaintiff opining that certain medical guidelines were outdated. Though the Defendant argued the opinions were unsupported, the Court found the testimony could potentially assist the jury and weaknesses were better addressed through cross-examination and contrary evidence rather than outright exclusion. The Court emphasized letting the adversarial process test competing expert views.
Read More →Court partly admits the consumer survey research and damages findings presented by the defense experts in trademark infringement suit
In this trademark infringement case over the RED GOLD mark, the court ruled on motions to exclude expert testimony. The Plaintiff, Solid 21, sought to exclude survey findings by the Defendants’ expert Mark Keegan regarding whether consumers identified “red gold” as a brand in ads. The Court denied this motion, finding Keegan qualified and his survey relevant to fair use. However, the court partially granted Solid 21’s motion to exclude testimony by another defense expert, Kennedy. Kennedy improperly relied on Keegan’s brand awareness survey to estimate consumer preferences for apportioning profits. The court found this unreliable since brand awareness and purchasing motivations are distinct. The Court also barred Kennedy from summarizing the court’s prior fair use rulings. Overall, the Court allowed testimony by Keegan that his survey measured brand awareness, relevant to fair use. But it excluded Kennedy’s attempts to use Keegan’s survey to show consumer motivations driving sales, finding he misapplied the data. The Court also prevented Kennedy from offering legal opinions on fair use standards. This demonstrates the importance of experts reliably applying methodologies to fit the purpose for their testimony.
Read More →Court limits treating physician’s testimony pertaining to issues concerning the Plaintiff’s treatment
This case demonstrates the court’s “gatekeeping” role in assessing reliability of expert testimony under Daubert and excluding opinions outside an expert’s direct knowledge and treatment. The decision provides guidance on constraining expert witness testimony to matters firmly within the bounds of the expert’s qualifications and experience.
Read More →Recent Expert Challenges
Expert Challenges, Fire Investigation Expert Witness
Expert Fire Investigator’s testimony determining the point of origin and cause of the fire found reliable
September 29, 2023
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness, Expert Challenges
Court limits expert testimony on crash reconstruction and its contributing factors
September 28, 2023